en 
ὶ 


SSS 
ESN RUS 
Se 


iy 











: « ! Η ; Ε 
ι “oN 

᾿ f 

\ Ψ “ἡ i aS 
ὺ 

ἣ ᾿ ῃ A < 

1 a ὧν > a 

᾿ f i ' * 

: 4 
' ; | 
ar AAs pe a emia = παν pide ΝΕ ᾿ 











Ex Libris 
Larue Yan Hook 











Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/classicalpapersoOOearliala 





COLUMBIA 
UNIVERSITY PRESS 
SALES AGENTS 


NEW YORK: 


LEMCKE & BUECHNER 
30-32 West 27TH STREET 


LONDON : 
HENRY FROWDE 


AMEN Corner, E. C. 


TORONTO : 
HENRY FROWDE 


25 RicHMOND StreEET, W. 








THE CLASSICAL PAPERS 


OF 


MORTIMER LAMSON’ EARLE 


WITH A MEMOIR 





New York 
The Columbia University Press 


1912 


All right reserved 





ΟΟΡΥΒΙΘΗΥ, 1912, ; 
By THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 





Printed from type, 1911. yet 


TO THE MEMORY OF 
SYDNEY GILLESPIE ASHMORE 
WHOSE UNTIMELY DEATH 
IS AT ONCE A GRIEVOUS SORROW TO HIS FRIENDS 
AND A SERIOUS LOSS TO AMERICAN SCHOLARSHIP 
THIS VOLUME 
WHICH OWES MUCH TO HIS GENEROUS DEVOTION 
1S DEDICATED 
BY THE EDITORS 


Oe 
ν᾿ 


τ 







ah : ᾿ ᾿ 











= “ae vel 
a et ae ae 






ae 






ΕΝ 


“ἢ 


᾿ es 








PREFACE 


This book was undertaken by a committee of Professor Earle’s 
colleagues, consisting of Professors Knapp, Lodge, Perry, and 
myself, with the object of putting on record in permanent 
form his chief contributions to classical learning. With the excep- 
tion of the three plays he edited—the Alcestis, the Medea, and the 
Oedipus Rex—there will be found here practically everything left 
by Professor Earle, whether in papers already published or in manu- 
script ready for publication. The editors, knowing well Professor 
Earle’s fastidious care in all work that he allowed to appear, were 
unwilling to include anything that he himself might have regarded 
as not sufficiently finished. Most of the papers, therefore, in the 
present volume have already appeared in the various learned peri- 
odicals. The principal new matter consists of some notes on Plato, 
Republic, Book I, which Professor Earle had intended to publish; 
a note, supplementary to his article on the Prooemium of Thucy- 
dides, on the Wall of Troy, all that remains of some extensive work 
on the Homeric Question which he had begun during the last year of 
his life; and some notes on the Trachinians. The editors are well 
aware that the arrangement of the book is open to criticism in many 
respects ; the diversity of the material, collected from different peri- 
odicals, made it almost impossible to secure complete uniformity, 
even in such matters as the spelling of proper names. Scholars, how- 
ever, will not allow these blemishes to impair their appreciation of the 
work. 

In the Appendix has been included a selection from Professor 
Earle’s poems and translations, as well as a facsimile of his Greek 
script, which was exceptionally fine and clear. 

The memoir is the work of the late Professor S. G. Ashmore, of 
Union College, one of Professor Earle’s life-long and most intimate 
friends. 

Thanks are here extended to the editors of The American Jour- 
nal of Archaeology, The American Journal of Philology, The Classi- 
cal Review, Revue de Philologie, Mnemosyne, and The Bookman, 


viii 


for their cordial permission to republish the articles of Professor 
Earle, which appeared in these periodicals. 

Professor Carroll N. Brown of the College of the City of New 
York kindly gave the editors the benefit of his excellent knowledge 
of Modern Greek, in connection with Professor Earle’s poems in 
that language. Help in copying was rendered by Miss Lucile Kohn 
and Miss Pearl C. Wilson, and in the preparation of the bibliography 
by Miss Lucy Sherman, all former pupils of Professor Earle. The 
proof has been revised throughout by Professor Knapp and myself. 

Ξ G. M. Hirst. 
New York, Jan. 1, 1912. 


CORRIGENDA 


P. 75, footnote, for XXIV (1903) read XXIV (1893). 
P. 145, footnote, for YIOCTAYOYN read YIIOCTAYPOYN. 


MORTIMER LAMSON EARLE 


Martimer Lamson Earle was born in New York on Oct. 14, 1864, 
and died in New York, Sept. 26th, 1905; he was the only child of 
Mortimer Lent Earle of New York and his wife, Mercy Josephine, 
daughter of Henry Allen of Providence, R. I. The founder of the 
family in America was one Edward Earle, who came to this country 
from England in 1649, at the age of 21, and settled in New Jersey, 
on the island of Secaucus, where the old Earle homestead is still 
standing (1909), with a stone on which is carved “Edward Earle, 
1689”. This Edward Earle and his son Edward received various 
commissions from the King of England to important public offices 
in Bergen County, N. J., and were both of them men of wealth, 
position and influence. There were two other Edwards in the direct 
line of descent to the subject of this sketch, of whom one held a 
Captain’s commission from King George III, the other, two genera- 
tions later, became well known as a physician in New York, where he 
sacrificed his life to the cause of duty and philanthropy during the 
cholera season of 1849. Edward the physician married Margaret 
Elizabeth Lent and was the grandfather of Mortimer Lamson 
Earle. 

In the Lent family two ancestors of Mortimer Lamson Earle dis- 
tinguished themselves as officers in the Continental Army. Another 
notable ancestor on the Lent side came from Holland to New Amster- 
dam in 1647 as Secretary to Governor Peter Stuyvesant. The name 
of this young man was Barent Resolved Waldron, Jr. He filled 
various public positions of trust,and proved himself to be both a true 
statesman and an able diplomat. The mother of Mortimer Lamson 
Earle was of English and New England descent and inherited all the 
sterling qualities of her race, independence of character, a deep sense 
of honour, fine sensibilities, and high religious ideals. The father 
was a man of business in New York and is said to have possessed a 
personality of unusual charm and attraction. 

Mortimer Lamson Earle spent the earlier years of his life in 
New York and its vicinity; he was prepared for college, in part at 
the public schools of East Orange, New Jersey, in part by private 


a 


tutors, but he did much to prepare himself, without aid from 
others, and entered Columbia University in 1882. In his boyhood 
he was cut off from much of that home life which falls to the lot 
of most children, because he was an only child, and lacked that 
association with others of his own name and condition which 
goes far toward rendering childhood happy. He was thrown in 
upon himself and his own resources, and became in consequence 
somewhat introspective, and more than ordinarily thoughtful. Ow- 
ing partly to this and partly to a certain physical weakness, which he 
afterwards outgrew, he was averse to the usual games and sports 
in which children commonly engage. Yet there was nothing churlish 
or forbidding in his nature. His disposition was cheerful, and his 
very thoughtfulness was often the occasion of his becoming a leader 
and a favourite among his schoolmates. 

One thing in particular contributed largely to this result. This 
was his love of the beauties of nature, a sentiment which in his case 
was more than usually developed—if we consider his years. He 
studied the habits of insects, made a collection of butterflies, learned 
the scientific names of plants and animals, and was always ready 
to impart his information and give his decision, whenever his play- 
mates came to him with questions and problems. In fact, so ob- 
viously did his tastes lie in the direction of nature-study that his 
career would probably have taken a technical and scientific direc- 
tion had not. other influences turned his thoughts to the pursuit of 
literature and language. 

On entering Columbia College he found there a fixed curriculum. 
The elective system had not then developed into what afterwards 
rendered possible a wide choice of subjects even for the entering 
Freshman. Greek and Latin were prescribed from the start and 
to them he applied himself with diligence. His intimate friend, 
Mr. William Wiley, was then in the Senior Class at Columbia, and 
being convinced that this quiet, studious boy had in him the making 
of a scholar, he took the young Freshman to see Mr. Merriam, 
who was then at the height of his promise as Professor of Greek. 
Mr. Merriam was soon convinced of the abilities and scholarly 
tastes of his pupil and became deeply interested in his progress. 
The friendship that ensued continued with ever deepening intensity 
until Professor Merriam’s untimely death. Thus young Earle 


χὶ 


was marked out for a scholar, whose chief interest lay in the study 
and interpretation of the Greek literature and language. But there 
was nothing narrow about his attainments; his scholarship was as 
broad as it was thorough, and all that he has given to the world in 
his writings exhibits that breadth of knowledge which implies 
familiarity with the collateral branches of art and architecture and 
archaeology, and whatever else is of genuine value to the true 
classicist. 

His performances during the Freshman year at college were note- 
worthy only so far as his Greek studies were concerned. He came 
off however with three prizes at the end of his Sophomore year— 
one in each of the departments of Greek, Latin and History. It 
was during the summer immediately preceding his Junior year, 
when Earle was about twenty years of age, that he began a series 
of diaries which are remarkable for the fact that they are written 
throughout in a foreign tongue. No less than three languages find 
an important place in these records. One of these languages is 
Latin, another German, and the third is modern Greek. The last 
he learned during a visit to Greece at the time when Professor 
Merriam was in Athens, and in charge there of the American 
School of Archaeology. As his purpose in writing his diaries was 
merely to acquire practice in handling the languages just named, 
and as the subjects about which he writes are chiefly those most 
nearly connected with his studies and investigations, it is not sur- 
prising that very little is found in these interesting documents 
which can be said to throw light on the history of his life. 

Nevertheless one may gather from them indications of his trend 
of thought and of the general character of his reading, at a time 
when his mind was taking shape and his literary tastes were form- 
ing. For example, while he was still an undergraduate he read 
the New Testament in Greek, Cicero’s letters and “De Fato”, as well 
as Emerson’s Essays, Motley’s Rise of the Dutch Republic, Darwin’s 
Origin of Species and other books of an equally serious character, 
besides a definite amount of ordinary Latin which he had determined 
to add daily to whatever other studies his fancy might suggest. 

At an early period in his career he complains of lack of progress 
in his Latin studies, and gives expression to hi; feelings in a remark 
which many of the Latin teachers of to-day would do well to take to 


ΧΙ 


heart—a remark which shows that he was taking his study of the 
Classics very seriously: “Mihi non multum in Latine scribendo 
progredi videor, sed multo melius scriberem, non dubito, si ver- 
sutum haberem magistrum, qui non aliter uteretur hac lingua quam 
propria, id est Anglicana. Mihi non dubium est quin turpissimum 
sit magistrum in lingua docenda constituere qui cognitionem non 
habeat intimam linguae ei commissae.” 

One of Mr. Earle’s personal: characteristics was a tendency to 
self-depreciation; this was undoubtedly due to despondency, to 
which he was subject even in his undergraduate days; he seemed 
troubled by thoughts which not infrequently take possession of a 
young man’s mind at this period of his life—thoughts bearing 
upon the position of man with reference to nature, and upon man’s 
eternal destiny. In one of his entries he hopes to be an alumnus in 
two years, when perhaps he will “see more clearly what now troubles 
him”, for “sol in animo occidere videtur” he says, after having in- 
terested himself in composing an imaginary dialogue between Calvin 
and Newman on the “Doctrina fati liberaeque voluntatis”. Moreover 
his high ideals rendered it difficult for him to appreciate his own at- 
tainments ; the latter seemed to him always to fall short of the goal. 
Although this tendency was a sign of merit, yet it pointed also to the 
habit of introspection, and did not augment his happiness. Results 
which would have been sources of encouragement to others were 
to him something of the reverse, for they indicated to his mind only 
the inadequacy of his efforts to secure perfection. His friends 
viewed these peculiarities of his temperament with wonder, for 
they realized that they were hardly justified by the facts. The 
record of his college course shows clearly that he was far beyond the ~ 
average man of his years in all that is allied to scholarship and learn- 
ing. He won no less than five scholarships, of which three were in 
Greek, one in Latin and one in History. These scholarships were - 
prizes of one hundred dollars each. The subject of his graduating 
thesis was John Milton, whose writings, as he tells us in one of his 
Latin diaries, had had a very great influence in the formation of 
his spiritual beliefs. 

At the time of his graduation the fellowship in letters was assigned 
to him. This gave him five hundred dollars per annum for three 
years, and enabled him not only to serve as a tutor in the college, but 


ΧΙ 


also to become a student at the University of Bonn and at the Ameri- 
can School of Classical Studies in Athens. 

Both in Bonn and in Athens Earle made good use of his time. 
His knowledge of German rendered his Greek studies at the Uni- 
versity both easy and interesting and enabled him to absorb there 
with unusual rapidity all that was of immediate importance to his 
purpose. The Germans, from the first, have taken the lead in 
archaeological investigation, and Earle made full use of all the 
opportunities presented to him in this field. He attended lectures 
on archaeology both at Bonn and Berlin, made a careful study of 
Overbeck and other authorities, and devoted much time to the casts 
and originals in the great museums. It was the good fortune of 
_ the writer to meet him in Berlin in the summer of 1889 and to take 
note of his studies and his methods. Under the circumstances it 
was impossible not to observe his keen appreciation of the advan- 
tages offered by the archaeological resources of the Berlin collec- 
tion. 

It was an inspiration in itself to hear him talk on the subject of 
archaeology, to take in the points which he made in reference to 
ancient art, and to learn from him the distinctions which expert 
knowledge is wont to make in the matter of earlier and later schools 
of statuary and architecture. Prof. Earle’s talents were well under- 
stood by Prof. Merriam, who, in the. year 1887, was director, as 
has been said, of the American School at Athens. On Earle’s 
first visit to Athens Prof. Merriam placed him in charge of excava- 
tions which the school was at this time conducting on the site of 
ancient Sikyon, and with the happiest results, for Earle not only 
uncovered an interesting theatre, but also a marble statue'of Dio- 
nysos, which is now preserved in the National Museum at Athens. 
The statue was of life size, and a cast of it is now on exhibition 
in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. It was this statue 
that Earle took for the subject of his thesis for his Doctor’s de- 
gree. The thesis, written in Latin, was never published.1_ But in a 
letter to the Evening Post of February 6th, 1888, Earle speaks of 
the “importance of the statue as being the first considerable example 
of Sikyonian sculpture found on the old site”. 

Other things also engaged his attention during the two years of 


*{The original copy is in the possession of his widow. See article published 
below pp. 234-46.] 


X1V 


his early visit to Athens, for he returned to New York bringing with 
him a practical knowledge of the modern Greek tongue, which he 
was able not only to speak but also to write with fluency and even 
elegance. Such acquirements as these implied a familiarity with 
Greek character and Greek lands, such as few of his colleagues 
in the colleges of America could hope to attain in so short a time. 

As a consequence his services were in demand almost immediately 
on his return to New York. He had already received the degrees 
of M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia University, and very soon he 
was appointed to a position at Barnard College, which had just 
opened its doors to young women who were seeking the benefits of 
a liberal education. From 1889 to 1895 he filled the post of in- 
structor in Greek at Barnard. In the latter year he accepted a call 
from Bryn Mawr, where for three years he bore the title of 
Associate Professor in Greek and Latin. In 1898 he returned to 
his former post in Barnard College which was then about to become 
a part of Columbia University. Two years afterwards he was pro- 
moted to the professorship of Classical Philology in Columbia Uni- 
versity, a position which he held until his death, in 1905. 

The writer can bear personal witness to the superior excellence 
of Professor Earle’s lectures and papers, many of which he was 
privileged to listen to, not only in earlier days at Barnard College, but 
also at a later time when Earle would speak before the Classical 
Club in Columbia University, or at gatherings of the American 
Philological Association. 

Earle was the first appointed secretary of the Faculty of Barnard 
College under its newly organized relations with Columbia Univer- 
sity, and was chairman of its committee on admissions from the 
date of its establishment in 1900 till January 1905. He was secretary 
also of the Division of Classical Philology in Columbia till 1903, 
and from 1903 until his death he served as its chairman. He had 
been reelected chairman a short time before he died. 

Professor Earle’s long and varied experience in teaching, both at 
Barnard and Bryn Mawr, will perhaps lend particular interest 
to his views on the education of women. Some of these 
views are contained in the following extract from an article by him 
on the education of women which appeared in the Columbia Uni- 
versity Quarterly’ . . . “If the college education of women is to be 


*(For June 1900, pp. 231-234.] 


XV 


what it should be, it must be broad without shallowness, minute 
without pettiness; it must be so conducted that the whole structure 
may be constantly regarded as well as the parts; it must be fitly 
framed together—vertebrate, not invertebrate. We must have the 
star, as well as the wagon. Is not the same true of the college 
education of young men? In a word we have not merely an intel- 
lectual problem before us, but a moral problem in the truest sense. 
Character must be built up in college. Honest study, honest think- 
ing, a regard for real intellectual growth and acquisition must be 
stimulated. Students must be led to regard what they get into their 
heads and hearts, rather than how high they are rated on examina- 
tion reports. They must regard the weightier matters of the law, 
tithe the mint and cummin as they will . .. The element of sex 
can perhaps be as easily eliminated from education as from other 
departments of human activity. We all know how easy that is. 
It is, after all, to the common ground of intellectual life that we 
have principally to address ourselves in liberal education rather than 
to the ill-defined border land of differences based on sex. It may 
fairly be asked whether we have as yet defined that border land well 
enough to keep surely outside of it, if we so desire.” 

The American Philological Association had enrolled Mr. Earle 
among its members as early as the year 1890, and elected him to the 
Vice-Presidency in 1902—a position which he filled with distinction 
for three years. His death in September 1905, alone prevented his 
elevation to the Presidency, an honour that could not have failed 
to become his at the regular meeting of the Association in the follow- 
ing December. Mr. Earle was a member of the Archaeological In- 
stitute of America, the American Dialect Society, the Egypt Explora- 
tion Fund, and of classical clubs in New York and Philadelphia. 

As a classical scholar, Prof. Earle may be ranked as one of our 
foremost Americans. In fact he won recognition in two continents, 
and had given rich promise of even greater distinction when (at the 
age of forty) his life was suddenly terminated by typhoid fever, 
contracted in Sicily after a summer spent in Dalmatia, Greece, and 
Crete. Abundant testimony to his scholarship and high character 
is afforded by his colleagues in various college faculties, and by his 
many other friends, in all parts of the world. Let us recall 
for the moment a few of the things that have been said about him 
by those who knew and worked with him. 


Xvi 


Prof. Perry of Columbia University refers to his scholarship in 
the American Journal of Philology.t Prof. Perry’s words are as 
follows: “As a scholar, Prof. Earle occupied a position almost 
unique among living Americans. While a well rounded classicist, 
with actual achievement in archaeological work to look back upon, 
his chosen field was discussion and interpretation of the text of Greek 
and Latin authors, and his contributions to the better understanding 
of Greek and Latin literature were very many. With the palaeo- 
graphy of Greek and Latin manuscripts and with the labours of 
earlier scholars in editing and interpretation he had an extraordinary 
acquaintance, perhaps unmatched in this country. He was in con- 
stant correspondence with classical scholars here and abroad, who de- 
lighted to ask his opinion on disputed points.” 

Prof. Herbert Weir Smyth of Harvard University pays him the 
following tribute:! ‘By Prof. Earle’s untimely death, the United 
States loses one of its most gifted scholars and Columbia Univer- 
sity one of its most effective and beloved teachers ... He was 
intellectually honest to the core. He was possessed by the scholarly 
instinct to the highest degree. Critical in his attitude of thought 
and refined in his taste, he permitted nothing to pass that seemed 
to him shallow, pretentious or frigid. He was a hater of shams, 
above all of the sham of half knowledge. His own knowledge was 
varied and exact, but he made no display. His short life, filled with 
devotion to high ideals, will remain an inspiration to the many 
friends who mourn his loss.” 

President Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia refers to his 
death in words of sincere interest and appreciation:' “In the death 
of Dr. Earle the University and American classical scholarship 
lose one of their brightest ornaments. Patient, cautious and persis- 
tent, Dr. Earle won for himself a place in the front rank of Ameri- 
can classical scholars and teachers, His contributions to classical 
philology are numerous and important, and his work in the class- 
room and in the seminar was of unusual excellence. Dr. Earle 
was of the type of scholar that no university can afford to be with- 
out, for it is a type to which scholarly ideals and scholarly standards 
are all in all.” 

*[Vol. xxx1. No. 4]. 

*[See The Classical Review for March, 1906.] 

*[See Report for 1905, p. 34.] 


XVii 


Professor Charles Foster Smith, of the University of Wisconsin, 
has expressed himself in the following terms in a letter to Mrs. 
Earle: “I always believed in him; we were all better for having 
known him, and traditions of his scholarship will linger, not only in 
Columbia, but all over America. Such a life, short, all too short, 
helps to keep up the standards.” 

Earle became widely and favourably known both in Europe and 
in the United States by his many articles on classical subjects 
in general, and in particular on the subject of textual criticism. 
These articles were published in such learned periodicals as The 
American Journal of Philology, The Classical Review, The Trans- 
actions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 
The American Journal of Archaeology, Harvard Studies in Classical 
Philology, Revue de Philologie, Mnemosyne, and a few others. He 
had contributed also to the volume entitled “Classical Studies in 
Honour of Henry Drisler”, published by Macmillan & Co., 1894. 

Some of Prof. Earle’s papers were notable for the fact that they 
were written in Latin, a time-honoured custom, which in America at 
least has been more often honoured in the breach than in the observ- 
ance. As these papers are given in the body of this book, their titles 
will be omitted here. 

But his best literary work is represented in his editions of three 
plays of the Greek dramatists—the Alcestis of Euripides (Mac- 
millan, 1894), the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles (American Book 
Co., 1901), and the Medea of Euripides (American Book Co., 1905). 
Concerning the last of these and the Oedipus Prof. Gildersleeve, 
who is always a severe critic, speaks as follows:* “Prof. Earle has 
displayed in his edition of the Medea the same nice knowledge of 
Greek idiom and the same faculty of neat statement that made his 
Oedipus something out of the common run of college text-books. 
Prof. Earle has occupied an almost solitary eminence among Ameri- 
can Hellenists as a conjectural critic, and so we find that in his 
edition of the Medea he has incorporated into the text a considerable 
number of conjectures of his own.” 

In The Classical Review for Oct., 1905, a further note of praise is 
sounded—this time from across the ocean. An English scholar of 
wide repute has a word to say not only about Prof. Earle’s edition of 
the Medea, but also about its author. “The book”, says Dr. Ver- 

*[See A. J. P. 1905.] 


XViil 


rall of Cambridge, “is interesting, of substantial merit, acceptable 
and praiseworthy ; its notes are terse, and the introduction is a cop- 
ious and agreeable essay in which archaeology has its turn”, and 
again, “the American author was a well-read scholar of competent 
judgment,” a remark implying much in the way of praise, coming as 
it did from a critic who is himself in the foreground of foreign 
scholarship, and whose nationality is least of all suggestive of a 
tendency to overstatement. 

Professor Bernard Haussoullier, editor of the: Revue de Philo- 
logie, in answer to a request for permission to reprint Earle’s con- 
tributions to that journal, wrote as follows: “Je félicite ses anciens 
collégues de l’idée, si juste, de réunir ses articles. Sans doute il 
était homme a avoir de l’action sur ses éléves, et son souvenir vivra 
dans leur coeur, mais l’étranger saluera avec reconnaissance un 
volume qui le défendra contre l’oubli. Reliquiae! Encore que ce 
mot renferme tant de tristesse! La Revue de Philologie a laquelle 
il a fait honneur sera fiére d’étre représentée dans ce recueil, et 
vous avez l’autorisation de reproduire dans votre volume tous les 
articles du maitre que vous voudrez. Vous voudrez bien me tenir 
au courant de la publication de ce volume, pour que je puisse 
l’'annoncer a mes lecteurs de la Revue de Philologie. Ce sera pour 
moi l’occasion de rendre hommage a votre cher absent.” 

Many other personal tributes to Prof. Earle’s accomplishments 
and character might be given here, but it seems best to err rather on 
the side of restraint than on that of profusion; “μηδὲν ἄγαν᾽᾽ 
would certainly have been his modest advice regarding such a ques- 
tion. Nevertheless one cannot forebear to quote here some re- 
marks of Prof. Elmer Truesdell Merrill, formerly of Trinity Col- 
lege, Hartford (now of Chicago University), which formed a part 
of the address delivered by that well known scholar in January 
1906, at a meeting in Washington of the American Philological 
Association. Prof. Merrill, who was the president of the Associa- 
tion, gave expression to the general sense of mourning, for the loss of 
so dear a friend, in the following words: “I cannot speak to you 
this evening without recalling him, my senior colleague in the vice- 
presidency of the American Philological Association, who would, 
in the ordinary course of our action, have been standing where I now 
stand. You will also have been thinking of him; and I do not need 


ΧΙΧ. 


to speak of that marked mental power, great attainment, and unflag- 
ging zeal for the intellectual life which have been so prematurely 
1emoved from us. ‘Light lie the earth upon him!” Nay, let me 
rather change the hopeless, though tender, pagan farewell for the 
noble words of the ancient Christian prayer, ‘May he rest in peace, 
and light eternal dawn upon him, —whose course among us was ever 
toward the light!” 

These remarks have hitherto been confined to the sphere of indi- 
vidual appreciation of Prof. Earle’s general merits and attainments. 
But some of the notices concerning him were of a corporate nature, 
as when the Classical Journal (for April 1906), for example, editor- 
ially regrets his loss and publishes a favourable comment on his 
edition of the Medea. But perhaps the most significant and import- 
ant of such tributes to his memory is embodied in the resolutions 
adopted by the Faculty of Philosophy of Columbia University, in 
the month of November 1905, a few weeks subsequent to the date 
of his funeral: “The most striking characteristics of Prof. Earle 
were his thoroughness of scholarship and fidelity to the duties he 
had undertaken, added to a singular acuteness of intellect and 
openmindedness, which made him accessible to a wide variety of in- 
terests. His teaching was thorough and exacting; he was a deter- 
mined foe of superficiality, and the high standards which he set be- 
fore his students were exemplified in his work. To advanced students 
his advice was invaluable, for the rich stores of his learning were 
unstintedly put at their disposal. He has been compared with the 
great scholars of Holland—an indefatigable reader with an un- 
usually retentive memory. His independence of judgment was very 
great, but he was generally his own severest critic. His real and last- 
ing contributions to a better understanding of Greek and Latin 
literature were very numerous. In his death not only Columbia 
University, but the whole world of scholarship has suffered a 
grievous loss.” 

Such is the corporate testimony of his own University to Prof. 
Earle’s learning and general worth, and though the reader will recog- 
nize a part at least of the resolutions as a repetition of what has 
been said by others, yet it should be borne in mind that repetition 
in this case is in no sense intentional on the part of the several wit- 
nesses. If different minds have spoken the same word on the same 


ΧΧ 


subject they have done their thinking independently—a fact that 
enhances and strengthens the value of their testimony. Indeed 
one may almost say of the many tributes to the great merits and 
capabilities of the man whom it was the delight of all who knew him 
to honour, ex uno disce omnes. His qualities were such as to com- 
mand a most general admiration—a fact that can be illustrated 
only by a multitude of citations. 

Perhaps therefore we may be permitted to quote a few lines from 
certain resolutions of the Class of 1886 of Columbia University, 
which show the esteem in which he was held by those who were his 
associates during his undergraduate days: “ . . . We his classmates 
at Columbia have met to express our profound sorrow at the death of 
Mortimer Lamson Earle, to make record of our love for the lost 
friend, and to add our tribute to the (general) recognition of his 
genius and scholarship. We knew him for twenty-four years. We 
admired the nobility which won him the highest student honours ; we 
saw with pleasure his growing prestige, and we took pride that it 
was our comrade at Columbia whose ripened scholarship had placed 
him in the front rank of American teachers of the Classics ... 
(hence) this meeting where we have gathered in memory of our 

friend of College days and later, who shared our sports and led us 
in our studies, who wrote the best college verse and best examin- 
ation papers. His keen and discriminating wit made him one of 
the most delightful of companions. He endeared himself to us in life 
by his human sympathies, and in his going away he is an irreparable 
loss.” 

Nor can it be out of place here to repeat a few words expressed 
in the form of a resolution by his pupils of Barnard College, who 
assembled at the time of his death to do honour to his memory: 
“. .. We grieve at the death of our beloved teacher, and mourn a 
loss which, as a college, we feel most keenly. We knew his high 
rank among scholars; we honoured his single-hearted devotion to 
pure learning. Yet to us he even more strongly represented the 
warm personal friend, who spared no effort to kindle his own high 
ideals in each individual student under his care. In return for this 
sympathy, we gave him that peculiarly tender affection which springs 
from gratitude for wider outlook and personal inspiration; and in 
his death each one of us is conscious of an irreparable loss.” 


Xxi 


One of Earle’s most interesting and valuable characteristics 
was the influence he exerted in his daily teaching. He was not only 
an author and a man of research; he was also a teacher of the first 
rank. It is difficult to state in exact terms what it is that consti- 
tutes the successful teacher. Is it power or inspiration? Undoubt- 
edly inspiration is a part of it. But the power to inspire may be ex- 
istent and yet limited, and most pupils will eventually weary of the 
most inspiring teachers. After making all allowances, however, we 
shall merely bestating a fact if we say that Prof. Earle led on his pupils 
to a love for Greek literature and to a true appreciation of its beau- 
ties. His ability in this respect was beyond the ordinary, and became 
especially noticeable in connection with the Greek Seminar in Colum- 
bia University, which was mainly under his leadership during the last 
five years of his life. A significant feature of his method was one 
which would ordinarily be supposed to militate against rather than 
to conduce to success. In Germany the custom still holds of con- 
ducting the Greek and Latin seminar in the Latin tongue. As the 
seminar method of instruction in America is a distinct importation, 
Prof. Earle felt that this tradition ought to be respected. Accord- 
ingly in his weekly Greek seminar for graduate students at Colum- 
bia he lectured regularly in Latin; this revival of a custom at one 
time well-nigh universal was not only acceptable throughout the 
University on Morningside Heights, but was also the means of 
attracting thither not a few graduate students from other institu- 
tions of learning. ᾿ 

Some idea perhaps of the character and extent of his reading, 
and of what he exacted of himself in the way of scholarly endeavour, 
may be gained from certain notes, headings, and brief remarks, which 
have been collected since his death. Of them the writer would note 
the following, which, however, are but a few of the many good things 
which seemed to fall from his pen, like the crumbs from the rich 
man’s table. For example, “I must read the Atticists with Schmidt’s 
Atticismus;” “I must read the history of Greek literature in Christ 
and Bernhardy” ; “I must finish Grote and read Meyer’s Geschichte 
des Altertums” ; “I must go on with the Greek historians, Polybius, 
Diodorus, Appian”; “I must go on with Greek dialects, Smyth’s 
Ionic, Bechtel, etc.”; “I must go on with Greek inscriptions”; “I 
must go on with Kontos and Cobet’’; “I must take up the Alexan- 


ΧΧΙΙ 


drian writers’; “I must go on with the Roman poets of the first 
century A. D.”; “I must re-read Cicero”; “Ernesti’s Clavis to be 
used”. 

Nor is this all, but it is enough perhaps to indicate the general 
trend and nature of his studies in the two literatures and in the 
critics. It may well be a matter of wonder how far he would have 
gone and'to what heights he might have attained had he been spared 
to continue his work. It is interesting also to observe the character 
of the brief sayings, already referred to, in which he seems to sum up 
the principles which guided his studies, and which under his leader- 
ship became the guides also of many if not all of his pupils. Some 
of these sayings may seem somewhat trite to the casual reader, and 
are so acknowledged even by himself; yet they serve to show the 
drift of his intellect and to throw light on his sanity and penetration. 
They are moreover of genuine value to the young student of whom 
doubtless he was always thinking. Thus, among his papers have 
been found such words as these, which are clearly in the nature of 
advice to the youthful aspirant for classical attainment: “Learn to 
read Greek by the light of nature. Few do this; few have done it”; 
“Remember that the ancients commonly used long sentences where 
we use short, choppy ones”; “The great critics should be read with 
great care; much may be learned from them ; much has been too little 
regarded in what they have written. The little critics are com- 
monly repeating and often misapplying what they have learned 
from their masters. All is not gold that is written in German or in 
modern Latin” ; “Don’t think that, because a great many people have 
interpreted certain words in a certain way, such explanation is neces- 
sarily right. We are all human”. “There are Greek words still not 
commonly understood among scholars”; and, best of all: “In order 
rightly to comprehend and accurately to appreciate the style of any 
individual writer or speaker, it is necessary to put oneself, so far 
as may be, en rapport with his intellectual life, the intangible ele- 
ment which determines the shape of the tangible, in other words to 
take his point of view.” Undoubtedly one way of doing this, or of 
trying to do it, is to go to the author’s native land and there to study 
the thought and habits of the people. That Earle thought so is 


*In the account given of Carolus Gabriel Cobet in Sandys’ History of 
Classical Scholarship, Vol. 11, the present writer sees much to remind him of 
Mortimer Lamson Earle. 


XXili 


proved by his fondness for the following couplet, also found among 
his papers, and once quoted in a letter which he addressed to the 
writer of this memoir: 


‘Wer den Dichter will verstehen 
Muss in Dichters Lande gehen.’ 


Bearing upon this subject, and of importance to teacher and pupil 
alike, are bits of advice and generalization, which appear in some 
of his letters addressed to his students. One would expect to find such 
general truths emphasized rather by an older man than Earle was in 
the year of 1886, when in a letter to a young friend he said: “Broad- 
ening is a good thing, but it means, in an easy nine cases in ten, super- 
ficiality. The thorough mastery of a few subjects does not neces- 
sarily make one narrow;” and again he said to the same friend (in 
1897), “be careful to keep the balance even, between desire and duty, 
between inclination and obligation.” 

No better proof of his determination to foster high ideals of 
scholarship, and respect for European tradition could perhaps be 
found than the advice which Prof. Earle once gave to a candidate 
for the Doctor’s degree who consulted him in reference to the dis- 
sertation. “I should urge you,” he said, “to make your text Latin 
instead of English; I do not approve of English theses for higher 
degrees in Classics.” But in connection with this evidence touch- 
ing his intellectual standards, it is encouraging and helpful to mark 
his moral attitude toward those whose intellectual advancement he 
regarded as especially dependent on his tuition and guidance. Ona 
previous occasion he had written to the same student the following 
words of encouragement: ‘Please remember that my work as 
teacher does not end there (i. e., with the seminar work in Greek 
authors), and that I shall be constantly at your service for any advice 
or help in your studies that I can give you.” 

Earle’s love for textual criticism and emendation, and his rever- 
ence for such critics as Thomas Johnson, Benjamin Heath, and 
Samuel Musgrave, of the eighteenth century, are indicated in his 
letters to the late Mr. Louis Dyer of Oxford, a charming Ameri- 
can scholar, the earlier part of whose life was spent at Harvard 
University, where he once held the post of Assistant Professor of 
Greek. One of his letters to Dyer, written in 1892, reads in part as 


XXIV 


follows: “Your hearty letter was very encouraging. Textual criti- 
cism is a thing toward which I find myself inclining more and more; 
so you can well imagine my pleasure at finding that what I had at- 
tempted in the Iphigenia among the Taurians had made me a 
laudatus a laudato viro. In regard to the Phoenissae, I shall be 
very glad to have you make me the target for as many letters as you 
choose to fire. I have attempted much less in the text of that play 
than in the Bacchae and Alcestis; however, whatever I may fancy 
I have guessed out better than another I shall take pleasure in plac- 
ing at your disposal.” . 

In another letter to Mr. Dyer, dated 1891, Earle speaks of having 
secured a copy of the Johnson Sophocles of 1745, containing a con- 
siderable body of very neat manuscript notes and emendations. ““They 
(the notes) are couched”, he says, “in a tidy, scholarly Latin, and 
from many points of internal evidence I am pretty well persuaded 
they are from Musgrave’s hand.” He then requests Dyer to help 
him to a bit of facsimile of Musgrave’s hand, in order that he may 
clinch or disprove his conjecture about the authorship of the notes 
in question. This facsimile was subsequently secured by Professor 
Herbert Weir Smyth, when the latter was in London, with the help 
of Professor Alfred Gudeman and through the courtesy of the direc- 
tor of the British Museum. A photograph was made of one of 
Musgrave’s autograph letters in the British Museum, which proved 
that the Johnson Sophocles referred to had been Musgrave’s hand- 
copy, and was all.that Professor Earle had claimed for it. 

Setting aside Prof. Earle’s abilities in authorship, in philological 
and archaeological investigation, and in teaching, we shall do well 
to take into account his personality and general character, as these 
appeared to his friends during the period of his maturity and man- 
hood. Something has already been said on this subject, so that we 
are again confronted with the danger of repetition. It is indeed hard, 
if not impossible, to separate a man’s personality from his profes- 
sional and active life, and the reader of this sketch may well say that 
he knows already the chief points in question. But lest we should 
omit anything worthy of mention let us take note of a few facts 
which throw light upon his nature, and may be considered sepa- 
rately, and quite apart from his professional career. 


In his personal appearance he was above middle height and well- 
~ 





XXV 


proportioned. His hair was dark, his eyes gray-blue, his moustache 
auburn, his profile clear-cut and handsome, and his fine transparent 
skin was mingled with a healthy color. He looked unusually youth- 
ful for his years—a fact that greatly enhanced his other attractions. 
His individuality was strong and suggestive of leadership. In short 
he had personal magnetism. It was not his way to follow blindly 
in another’s footsteps. His independence of mind carried him sel- 
dom into mistaken paths, more often into those which lead to valu- 
able discoveries. He was wont to speak his mind fearlessly and 
frankly—a habit at times deprecated by those who realized how far 
a man may thus stand in the way of his own promotion and worldly 
advantage. But this was one of the faults of his qualities—if in- 
deed that can be called a fault which, though disadvantageous to 
his own prospects, was nevertheless the source of real helpfulness 
to his pupils and friends. His contempt indeed, which was seldom 
concealed, for all that was unworthy and meretricious, came occas- 
sionally into direct conflict with the plans and policies of the powers 
that be—sometimes even to the ultimate discomfiture of the latter 
and to the betterment of pedagogical rulings and principles; for 
his sense of honour was keen, his loyalty to duty most exacting, 
while a certain spirit of “noblesse oblige’ compelled him often to 
sacrifice personal interests to the good of the cause which he repre- 
sented. He had a way of looking to find in others the same high 
ideals which he cherished himself, and his disappointment knew no 
bounds when he found, as was not seldom the case, that his confi- 
dence had been mistaken or misplaced. 

Jealousy was wholly foreign to his nature, which seemed to crave 
that the right should prevail in all things, without regard to those 
by whom it might be maintained. He was a philosopher in the best 
sense of the term, and was well aware that perfection in all things 
is far to seek. There were in him certain warring elements which 
manifested themselves according to the occasion. His respect for 
true religion was indubitable, and he had in him something of the 
mystic, yet his independence of all authority in religious: matters 
was suggestive also of the agnostic. His sense of what he deemed 
to be his own unworthiness was coupled with an honest desire for 
recognition, and when the latter was withheld he would abandon 


himself to temporary discouragement—a trait in his character that 
* 


ΧΧΥῚ 


belonged more particularly to his earlier career, when his powers 
and acquirements were not yet fully known. Looking, as he did, 
upon the Classics in American education, not as the means merely by 
which a teacher may gain a livelihood, but as a potent instrument for 
promoting the well-being of the nation, and the progress of art and 
literature, he became at times despondent over the future of his 
favorite subjects. Yet he believed thoroughly in his calling, and 
worked with untiring zeal to advance its interests, so that no amount 
of discouragement ever caused him to let go that desire for perfec- 
tion which served as a spur to all endeavours. 

In fact this very desire produced in him a sort of fastidiousness 
which showed itself even in little matters. It appeared in his speech, 
his manners, and his dress. He admired what he called “good 
form” and could not easily overlook vulgarity or disregard for 
social conventions. Yet he was no fop. Affectation of any sort was 
abhorrent to him. His spirit was truly democratic. He loved to as- 
sociate with the genuine peasant, and the country folk of his own 
and other lands. He was attached especially to the peasant folk of 
Greece, and learned from them all he could of their customs and 
language. He treated them kindly and without condescension, and 
accepted their crude and humble hospitality. Not infrequently 
when he was living in New York, Greeks would come to him as to 
a friend to ask for advice and guidance in the new country in which 
they had just landed and where they found themselves without 
friends or the means of subsistence. In general he cherished 
a romantic attachment for Greece and her people, such as 
might be likened to that of Lord Byron, and he gained both profit 
and pleasure from his summer visits to the Isles of Hellas and the 
eastern coasts of the Mediterranean. 

The fastidiousness of which we have spoken extended also to the 
use of his native tongue. He possessed that “curiosa felicitas” in the 
use of English, which is conspicuous by its absence in so many of 
our American born youth, even in those who, because of their tra- 
ditions and environment, ought to be distinctly proficient in this 
respect. By many of us he would have been dubbed “a purist” 
(were not that word suggestive of a sneer), so few indeed are 
they who attach high value to nicety in linguistic expression. But 
Prof. Earle contended to the last for that purity of diction which 


XXvii 


is ever the aim of the true linguist and student. He believed 
in Lowell’s dictum, which he often quoted: “Elegance is also 
force’, and he did what he could to imprint this well attested 
doctrine on the minds of his pupils. Even his handwriting illus- 
trated the importance which he attached to the question of form, 
for it was always clear and pleasing to the eye, while his Greek 
hand, in the words of an admiring contemporary, “was more 
beautiful than Porson’s”. 

Some things that have been said about him by his relatives 
throw further light on his disposition and mental habits. Accord- 
ing to a sister of his mother, Earle exhibited an affection for his 
mother that was “beautiful in every respect’; the two were “in- 
separable companions, and as her health failed he watched over 
her constantly in loving devotion”. 

Another cousin, Doctor Frank Hunter Zabriskie, who saw Earle 
frequently in the summers of 1884 and 1885, was impressed with 
the latter’s fondness for Latin and Greek. “His only ambition”, 
says Dr. Zabriskie, “was to know these two languages exactly, and 
he already was well along to the goal”. “I remember well’, adds 
the Doctor, “seeing him, day after day, lying on his belly, with 
his feet up in the air, reading Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ at sight, scarcely 
ever referring to glossary or dictionary; Macaulay’s phrase of ‘feet 
on the fender’ had its parallel in Mortimer’s case, and after a 
walk on the hills or a tramp over to the Connecticut river he 
would set down the fact in Latin verse. His interest in philology 
began about this time, when he read carefully and with great en- 
joyment Professor Whitney’s ‘Life and Growth of Language’, 
with whose conclusions he thoroughly agreed’. 

The same cousin avers that at this time there were two authors 
for whom Earle entertained a positive dislike. One of them was 
Carlyle, whom he believed to have done “a lasting injury to the 
English language”. The other was Emerson, whom he accused 
of “lacking system”, and of being an inexact scholar. Such pre- 
judices may provoke a smile in those of riper years; but it should 
be recalled to mind that at this time Earle was still an undergrad- 
uate, and therefore a mere boy. Nor were his judgments with- 
out discrimination, but rather do they give proof of a power of 
discernment and of a literary sense by no means common in one 


ΧΧνΙ 


of his years and inexperience. Of like character with such criti- 
cisms was his disapproval of a well-known clergyman, whom, ac- 
cording to the same authority, young Earle thoroughly detested, 
“not only because of that eccentric preacher’s peculiar style of 
composition, but because of his habit of sacrificing reverence to 
erect” 

“Mortimer’s interests were wide,’ adds Dr. Zabriskie in closing; 
“he loved to read a medical treatise and was always pleased at an 
apt analogy or a good bit of writing in such a work.” Other in- 
teresting reminiscences of Earle’s earlier life and mental drift 
are related both by Dr. Zabriskie and by other relations and family 
friends, but cannot be quoted here. 

Perhaps enough has been said, however, to give the reader a fairly 
adequate impression of Prof. Earle’s character and achievements, 
and yet the writer of this biography finds it no easy matter to decide 
just whemhe should stop, for Mortimer Lamson Earle had a genius 
for friendship, which renders the recounting of his achievements 
a source of real pleasure and satisfaction. These remarks are not of 
the sort that belong to panegyric; they emanate from an earnest 
desire to do justice to a man and a scholar, whose love for everything 
good in life and in literature was one of his most prominent traits; 
whose fine sense of humour and keen appreciation of the dramatic 
and picturesque made him a charming companion, and brought him 
into honourable as well as pleasant relations with many who were 
unable to follow him closely in the narrower paths of his intellectual 
life. 

His own personal range of athletic activity was confined almost 
entirely to one sphere. He was an experienced swimmer. A really 
good swimmer was a man of prowess in the “old days” of Greece 
and Rome, and Earle had the best Greek legend and story at his 
back whenever he found opportunity to practise his favourite 
exercise. 

In general Professor Earle was in the highest sense a man. 
“Take him for all in all I shall not look upon his like again.” Let 
him therefore live in our memories, for his life, as we know it, is 
something not to be forgotten, and his every act is worthy of the 
imitation of the greatest as well as the lowliest of us all. To the 
writer he was both a friend and an inspiration. “I have felt his 


3) 


XXix 


touch and shall feel it always.” Thus his work lives after him in 
many ways. “Si quis piorum manibus locus, si, ut sapientibus placet, 
non cum corpore extinguuntur magnae animae, placide quiescas, nos- 
que (amicos tuos) ab infirmo desiderio et muliebribus lamentis ad 
contemplationem virtutum tuarum voces, quas neque lugeri neque 
plangi fas est.” 

In memory of Mortimer Lamson Earle, Columbia University 
has established a prize of $50.00 called the “Earle Prize in Classics” 
which is open for annual competition to all undergraduates in 
Columbia and Barnard Colleges. His private library of classical 
authors, comprising three thousand volumes, which he had col- 
lected at home and abroad during a period of twenty years, has 
been purchased from his widow by his pupils, classmates, colleagues 
and other friends, and presented to Columbia University as a per- 
manent memorial. Each volume is marked by a book-plate which 
contains certain words chosen from the “Ion” of Euripides, as 
reflecting Prof. Earle’s high ideals: 


Κλεινὸς δ᾽ ὁ πόνος μοι 


θεοῖσιν δούλαν χερ᾽ ἔχειν. 


Union College, SIDNEY G. ASHMORE. 
Schenectady, N. Y. 





Υ 
te 


ἡ 
SN 
i 
AG τ 
ΜῊ 








SOPHOCLES. 


I.—Studies in Sophocles’s Trachinians.* 


1. The Trachinians and the Alcestts. 


In studying the resemblances between Greek plays we have to 
observe, besides the more general and comprehensive resemblances 
of plots, as in the Choéphoroe and the Electras, certain other kinds 
of similarity of less extent and compass. These may be grouped 
under three heads: (1) resemblances of motives, (2) resemblances 
of scenic situations, (3) verbal parallels. Of these it appears that 
the first and third have received more attention from students of 
the Greek drama than has the second, though it is impossible to 
deal adequately with resemblances of motives without taking account 
incidentally of resemblances of scenic situations. In his excellent 
Schlafscenen auf der attischen Biihne (Rhein. Mus. 46 [1891], pp. 
25-46) Dr Dieterich has dealt with both the latter and the former 
and has considered verbal parallels as well. As a further example 
of the way in which the several sorts of resemblances are bound 
up together, and also of the way in which they may be complicated 
besides by derivation from several sources in the same passage, I 
may cite here the opening of the Philoctetes.*. The first two lines 
are reminiscent of the opening of the Prometheus, a play the influ- 
ence of which on subsequent Greek drama has never, | think, been 
adequately estimated. We have here not merely a verbal parallel, but 
also a resemblance of motive. In the Prometheus the hero of the 
play is brought to a desolate place to suffer alone; in the Philoctetes 
the speaker of the prologue tells, on coming to the place where the 


1From Transactions of the American Philological Association ; Vol. xxxiii (1902), 
Pp. 5-20. 

2 [ Philoctetes 2 βροτοῖς ἄστειπτος οὐδ᾽ οἰκουμένη : adapted from Aesch. Prometheus 2, 
and combining the two readings ἄβροτον and ἄβατον. Thus βροτοῖς ἄστειπτος (or 
ἄστιπτος) is a combination of these two readings and οὐδ᾽ οἰκουμένη is equivalent to. 
καὶ ἐρήμη derived from ἐρημίαν. May not then the variant reading in Prom. 2 be 
as old as Sophocles’s time? Cf. also Antigone 770. (Ms. note; cp. also PAPA. 
(1901) 32, p. xxviii.) ] 


4 Greek Authors 


hero of the play was left to suffer alone, of the circumstances of 
that abandonment, of which he had been, like the speaker of the 
prologue of the Prometheus, the chief agent. But the resemblance 
of scenic situation in this passage is not primarily between the Prome- 
theus and the Philoctetes, but between the Ajax and the Philoctetes. 
In both the Ajax and the Philoctetes Odysseus is discovered at the 
doorway of an enemy—in both cases a man that he has wronged— 
and desirous of learning whether that enemy is within, but fearing 
to enter and, in the sequel, getting his information at second hand 
from a companion. Furthermore, the prologue of the Philoctetes 
is reminiscent of the Trachinians, to which play it is a sort of sequel 
and in the lost close of which Philoctetes may well have figured, at 
least in an ἀγγελικὴ ῥῆσι. Thus ποτὸν κρηναῖον (21) seems to be 
an echo of xpyvaiov ποτοῦ in the prologue of the Trachinians (14), 
and βοῶν ἰύζων (11), as we should doubtless read with IT instead of 
βοῶν στενάζων, is repeated from Trach. 787, where the words are 
used of the suffering hero of that ρίαν. But we are not at present 
to discuss in detail the likenesses of the Philoctetes and the Tra- 
chinians, but of the Alcestis and the Trachinians ; and I now proceed 
to the examination of a remarkable composite parallel between those 
two plays that had not, to the best of my knowledge, been noted 
by any one. 
In Trach. 322-328, after Deianira’s question to Iole, instead of the 

latter answering, Lichas says: 

Οὐ τἄρα (7. ¢. ἐὰν εἴπῃ) τῷ ye πρόσθεν οὐδὲν ἐξ ἴσου 

χρόνῳ διοίσει γλῶσσαν, ἥτις οὐδαμὰ 

προὔφηνεν οὔτε μείζον᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἐλάσσονα, 

ἀλλ᾽ αἰὲν ὠδίνουσα συμφορᾶς βάρος 

δακρυρροεῖ--- δύστηνος --- ἐξ ὅτου πάτραν 

διήνεμον λέλοιπεν - ἡ δέ τοι τύχη 

κακὴ μὲν αὐτῇ y ἀλλὰ συγγνώμην ἔχει 
In reading these verses with a class, I was suddenly struck by their 
verbal likenesses to a familiar passage in the Alcestis, vv. 136-140, 
where at the close of the parodus the coryphaeus says: 


1[For another verbal parallel between two plays of Sophocles compare Antigone 
420, 421 ἐν δ᾽ ἐμεστώθη μέγας | αἰθήρ with Llectra 713-715 ἐν δὲ πᾶς ἐμεστώθη 
δρόμος | κτύπου κροτητῶν ἁρμάτων " κόνις 5’ ἄνω | φορεῖθ᾽ - where the connecting idea 
is the dust. (Ms. note.)] 


Sophocles 5 


> 3 > cal 
Αλλ᾽ ἥδ᾽ ὀπαδῶν ἐκ δόμων τις ἔρχεται 
δακρυρροοῦσα" τίνα τύχην ἀκούσομαι ; 
- ’ ἊΨ , / 
Πενθεῖν μέν, εἴ τι δεσπόταισι τυγχάνει, 
συγγνωστόν. εἰ δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἔστιν ᾿Αδμήτου ᾿ γυνὴ 


εἴτ᾽ οὖν ὄλωλεν εἰδέναι βουλοίμεθ᾽ ἄν. 


Here we have three rather noticeable words in the former passage 
matched by three words in the latter that are the same in the first 
two instances and cognate in the third, and those words within the 
same compass and in the same order. That this verbal parallel is 
not accidental can be proved by an examination of the situation in 
the two passages. In both places a woman slave from whom some 
one is anxious to learn something weeps in silence. In the Tra- 
chinians that woman slave is a captive of Heracles, and her silence is 
due scenically to the lack of a fourth actor. At the close of the 
Alcestis (1131-1146) one that is nominally a woman slave obtained 
by Heracles as a prize of victory is silent when questioned, for the 
scenic reason that there is no third actor. The scene was a striking 
one on the stage, and we should not forget—a point to which I 
shall revert—that Sophocles had witnessed the first performance 
of the Alcestis and beaten Euripides in the competition at that time. 
Is it not now patent that in writing the passage in the Trachinians 
that we are considering Sophocles, in a curious fashion but one that 
is quite intelligible psychologically? fused two passages of the 
Alcestis that were scenically striking to the eye and that had ele- 
ments in common? That Sophocles would have written this conflate 
reminiscence of the Alcestis had he not seen that play acted and 
appreciated the power of its scenic situations may well be doubted; 
but it will also, I think, appear probable in what follows that pre- 
paratory to writing the Trachinians he had deliberately refreshed 
his memory by a reading of the Alcestis. But of this more later.® 

With the passage in the Trachinians that has just been discussed 
may be associated another in which again, unless I am mistaken, 

Ἰ ἔστιν ᾿Αδμήτου Lenting : ἐστὶν ἔμψυχος codd. 

2 For the psychology of such ‘‘ associated reminiscences’? see Mr A. Β. Cook’s 
interesting and suggestive article Class, Rev. XV (1g01), 338-345. I gladly acknow- 
ledge the impetus which Mr Cook’s paper has given to my studies. 

3It may be added here that the parallel in the 7rachinians is a proof of the un- 


soundness of M. Henri Weil’s εὔγνωστον in Alc. 139 (on which see also Hayley’s 
note). 


6 Greek Authors 


the Alcestis is imitated. In v. 1181 Heracles asks Hyllus to give 
him his right hand in confirmation of a pledge (Ἔμβαλλε χεῖρα 
δεξιὰν πρώτιστά por) Hyllus is reluctant, but upon Heracles 
fiercely urging him he stretches out his hand with the words: Ἰδοὺ 
προτείνω κοὐδὲν ἀντειρήσεται (v. 1184). At Alc. 1118, after 
Heracles, on the ground that he trusts Admetus’s right hand alone 
(v. 1115), has urged the latter to give his hand to the veiled woman 
(v. 1117), Admetus does stretch out his hand with the words: 
Kai δ)ὴ προτείνω. The fact that this half verse occurs in a scene 
that we have found Sophocles imitating elsewhere, added to the 
fact that the scenic situation is a very striking one, makes it pretty 
certain that Trach. 1184 is a reminiscence of Alc. 1118. It is to be 
noted that Sophocles substituted for Euripides’s καὶ δὴ the synony- 
mous ἰδοὺ. It is possible that another Euripidean situation in which 
the scenic business must have been decidedly good—viz. the scene 
where Medea makes Aegeus take oath—may have been likewise 
before Sophocles’s mind in writing Trach. 1181 sqq. But it is not 
certain. 

Before taking up the reminiscences of the Alcestis that are to be 
found pretty plentifully in Trach. 896-946 I may note that there is 
perhaps more in the resemblance of Trach. 869 to Alc. 777 than has 
hitherto been observed. In the passage in the Alcestis Heracles 
describes a servant receiving him στυγνῷ προσώπῳ καὶ συνω- 
φρυωμένος (as we should surely read, with Nauck, for ow- 
ὠφρυωμένῳ). In the passage in the Trachinians the coryphaeus 
describes a servant coming out of the house to make an announce- 
ment ἀήθης (according to the Mss.) καὶ συνωφρυωμένη. Now 
this is the announcement of the entrance of the old woman servant 
that is to deliver a speech (vv. 899-946) reminiscent of the speech 
delivered by the woman servant in Alc. 153-198; we might, there- 
fore, justly expect to find here a reminiscence of Alc. 136 sq.: 

᾿Αλλ᾽ ἥδ᾽ ὀπαδῶν ἐκ δόμων Tis ἔρχεται 

δακρυρροοῦσα : τίνα τύχην ἀκούσομαι ; 
That there is any link between the two passages does not, at first 
sight, appear; but Mr Blaydes has suggested that the certainly cor- 
rupt ἀήθης in Trach. 869, which has been changed by several scholars 
into ἀηδὴς, was originally κατηφὴς, and we find at Med. 1012 Τί 
δὴ κατηφὲς (Cobet: κατηφεῖς codd.) ὄμμα καὶ δακρυρροεῖς. May not, 


Sophocles 7 


then, Trach. 868-870 contain a conflation of Alc. 777 and Med. 1012 
referred to a scenic situation similar to that of Alc. 136 sq. by 
reason of the occurrence of the verb δακρυρροεῖν in both Alc. 137 
and Med. 1012, and should we not accept κατηφὴς in Trach. 869 ?* 

That Sophocles had Alc. 77-136 in his mind at this place in the 
Trachinians is pretty certain, not merely from the reminiscences of 
Alc. 153-198 in Trach. 899-946, but also from the use of hemichoria 
in vv. 863-867 to perform in a much shorter compass the function 
of the hemichoria in Alc. 77-136. It is also to be observed that 
Trach. 871-898 take the place of vv. 141-151 in the Alcestis and that 
Trach. 896 sq. 

μᾶλλον δ᾽, εἰ παροῦσα πλησία 

ἔλευσσες of ἔδρασε κάρτ᾽ ἂν ᾧκτισας. 
are reminiscent of Alc. 157 

ἃ δ᾽ ἐν δόμοις ἔδρασε θαυμάσῃ κλύων. 
The words in the Alcestis are part of the prooemium of the servant’s 
ῥῆσις itself; those in the Trachinians part of the external introduc- 
tion to the servant’s ῥῆσις." 

We come now to the most obvious likenesses between the Tra- 
chinians and the Alcestis. They are as follows (in addition to that 
just cited) : 

Trach. 900 ἐπεὶ yap ἦλθε (Schaefer: παρῆλθε codd.) δωμάτων ἔσω 

μόνη 

Alc, 158 ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἤσθεθ᾽ κτὲ. 


ΤᾺ very pretty example of a conflate reference to Homer by Sophocles may be cited 
here as illustrating the tendency of his mind. In 7γαεῖ. 144-6 Td yap νεάζον ἐν 
τοιοῖσδε βόσκεται | χώροις tv’ (αὐτοῦ καί viv) οὐ θάλπος θεοῦ | 085’ ὄμβρος οὐδὲ πνευμάτων 
οὐδὲν κλονεῖ, it was seen and noted by Schneidewin that there is a reference to Hom. ε 
478 sqq., where it is said of the two θάμνοι : τοὺς μὲν ἄρ᾽ οἴτ᾽ ἀνέμων didn μένος ὑγρὸν 
dévrwy, | οὔτε ποτ᾽ ἠέλιος φαέθων ἀκτῖσιν ἔβαλλεν, | οὔτ᾽ ὄμβρος περάασκε διαμπερές, but it 
has not been noted that πνευμάτων οὐδὲν κλον εῖ is not to be explained from the 
passage just cited but from another, a little farther on in the Phaeacian Episode, 
which was naturally, owing to both its proximity and its similarity to the former, run- 
ning in Sophocles’s mind at the same time. This is the famous description of 
Olympus (¢ 43-5), ὅθι φασὶ θεῶν ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεὶ | ἔμμεναι " ovr’ ἀνέμοισι τιν ά σ oe 
ται, οὔτε ποτ᾽ ὄμβρῳ | δεύεται, οὔτε χίων ἐπιπίλναται, κτὲ. 

3 Zielinski’s notion (Philologus 55 [1896], 593'*) that the κομμός originally began 
immediately after 7rach. 870 is refuted by Alc. 141-151, as shewn above. Zielinski’s 
Excurse zu den Trachinierinnen, Philol, 55, 491-540, 577-633, contains some valuable 
matter. For the most part, the writer’s perversity is only equalled by his prolixity. 


8 Greek Authors 


Trach. 904 βωμοῖσι προσπίτνουσ᾽ 

Alc. 170 sq. 
πάντας δὲ βώμους. .. 
προσῆλθε 

Trach, 908 sq. 
εἴ του φίλον (Naber: φίλων codd.) βλέψειεν οἰκετῶν δέμας, 
ἔκλαιεν 

Alc. 192 πάντες δ᾽ ἔκλαιον οἰκέται" 

Trach. 913 τὸν Ἡράκλειον θάλα μον εἰσορμωμένην 

Alt. 175 θάλαμον ἐσπεσοῦσα καὶ λέχος ἢ 

Trach.Qt 5-922 

δρῶ δὲ τὴν γυναῖκα δεμνίοις 
τοῖς Ἡρακλείοις στρωτὰ βάλλουσαν φάρη. 
Ὅπως δ᾽ ἐτέλεσε τοῦτ᾽, ἐπενθοροῦσ᾽ ἄνω 
καθέζετ᾽ ἐν μέσοισιν εὐνατηρίοις 
καὶ δακρύων ῥήξασα θερμὰ νάματα 
ἔλεξεν - Ὦ λέχη τε καὶ νυμφεῖ᾿ ἐμά, 
τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη χαίρεθ᾽, ὡς ἔμ᾽ οὔ ποτε 
δέξεσθ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἐν κοίταισι taicd εὐνάτριαν. 

Alc. 175-184 (omisso tamquam spurio vsu. 178) 
κἄπειτα θάλαμον ἐσπεσοῦσα καὶ λέχος, 
ἐνταῦθα δὴ ᾿δάκρυσε καὶ λέγει τάδε - 

Ὦ λέκτρον ἔνθα παρθένει᾽ ἔλυσ᾽ ἐγώ, 

χαῖρ᾽ - οὐ γὰρ ἐχθαίρω σ᾽ - ἀπώλεσας δέ με 
μόνον "ἢ προδοῦναι γὰρ σ᾽ ὀκνοῦσα καὶ πόσιν 
θνήσκω - σὲ δ᾽ ἄλλη τις γυνὴ κεκτήσεται 
σώφρων μὲν οὐκ ἂν μᾶλλον, εὐτυχὴς δ᾽ ἴσως. 
Κυνεῖ δὲ προσπίτνουσα, πᾶν δὲ δέμνιον 
ὀφθαλμοτέγκτῳ δεύεται πλημμυρίδι. 

Trach. 938 ἀμφιπίτνων (Wecklein: ἀμφιπίπτων codd.) στόμασιν 

Alc. 403 ποτὶ σοῖσι πίτνων στόμασιν 


(This and the two following are noticeable as being derived from 
two other places in the Alcestis. The reason in the case of the first 
and third of these passages is obvious: the description of the son 
of Deianira mourning over his dead mother is naturally assimilated 


1 Noted also by Zielinski p. 5931". 
? Noted also by Zielinski p. 5953}. 
ἢ Blomfield for μόνη (see Hayley ad loc.). 


Sophocles 9 


to the mourning of Alcestis’s son over his dead mother. The scenic 
situation was a striking and highly emotional one in the case of the 
Alcestis.1_ The association of ideas that led to the dovetailing in of a 
suggestion of Admetus’s speech is the easier to understand if we 
remember that Admetus’s words are part of a command that he says 
he will give to the children.) 
Trach. 938 sq. 
πλευρόθεν 
πλευρὰν παρεὶς ἔκειτο 
Alc. 466 sq. 
πλευρά τ᾽ ἐκτεῖναι πέλας 
πλευροῖσι τοῖς σοῖς 
Trach. 942 ὠρφανισμένος βίον (Wakefield: βώυ codd.) 
Alc. 396 sq. ἷ 
προλιποῦσα δ᾽ ἀμὸν βίον 
ὠρφάνισεν (Sophocles construed ἀμὸν βίον with 
ὠρφάνισεν) 
Trach.943 Τοιαῦτα τἄνδον ἐστίν 
Alc.196 Τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐν οἴκοις ἐστὶν ᾿Αδμήτου κακά ἢ 
Before seeking to draw certain conclusions from the resemblance 
of the Trachinians to the Alcestis it may not be out of place to 
remark on an odd turn of phrase in the Trachinians which has not 
been well understood and seems to have been derived from a par- 
ticular passage in Euripides. In Trach. 914 sq. the old woman 
servant is made to say: 
κἀγὼ λαθραῖον ὄμμ᾽ ἐπεσκιασμένη 
φρούρουν, ὁρῶ δὲ κτὲ. 
If we will compare Alc. 34 sq. (a rather striking passage) 
νῦν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇδ᾽ ad 
χέρα τοξήρη φρουρεῖς ὅπλίσας. 
where we should construe χέρα φρουρεῖς (‘keepest thy hand on 
guard’) τοξήρη ὁπλίσας (= τόξῳ ὁπλίσας), we shall see that we 
are to connect ὄμμ᾽ directly with ¢povpow (‘was keeping my eye 
on guard’: cf. ὄμματος | dpovpaxv> 224 sq.). Following out the 
1The application of A/c. 396 sq. and 403 to Hyllus seems to make it certain that 
Ale. 393-403 and 407-415 areto be assigned to the boy (Eumelus), not divided be- 
tween the girl (393-403) and the boy (407-415) as Lenting thought (Zpzstg/a Critica 
in Eur. Alc. p. 65 54.) 
2 Noted also by Zielinski p. 5941". 


10 Greek Authors 


interlocked order, we shall further connect λαθραῖος (λαθραῖον an 
easy scribe’s slip before ὄμμ᾽) ἐπεσκιασμένη. Not merely the striking 
use of φρουρεῖν but the interlocked order of words is common to 
the place in the Trachinians with that in the Alcestis. That the 
former is derived from the latter seems reasonably probable when 
we compare Phil. 151 φρουρεῖν ὄμμ᾽ ἐπὶ σῷ μάλιστα καιρῷ, where 
φρουρεῖν ὄμμ᾽ suggests the Zrachinians, the construction of ἐπὶ c. 
dat. with the phrase suggests the Alcestis. 

Whether the view just explained of the origin of the idiom in 
Trach. 914 sq. be right or not, we may, I think, draw this conclusion 
incidentally from our examination of the idiom, that Trach. 914 
and 915 are not to be separated by the insertion of v. 903 (with 
ἐμαυτὴν for ἑαυτὴν. Mollweide (as quoted by Nauck) is more 
likely right in treating v. 903, which cannot stand where it does, as 
due toa scholion on λαθραῖον ὄμμ᾽ ἐπεσκιασμένη. Its case would thus 
be somewhat like that of the notorious Ant. 24.1 

The thesis, which with others quite as perverse Dr Zielinski de- 
fends in the writing that has been cited already, that the Trachin- 
tans is earlier than the Alcestis and that Euripides in his play bor- 
rowed (and not very cleverly) from Sophocles, is completely refuted 
by the first of the parallels that I have cited between the two plays. 
Another thesis, proposed by the now distinguished Leyden Hellenist 
Professor J. van Leeuwen in his Commentatio de Ajacis Sophoclet 
authentia et integritate (Utrecht, 1881), that the first part of the 
Trachinians (1-875) was written about 430 B.c. under the influence 
of the Alcestis and the Medea, the rest, which is less strict in metri- 
cal form, at a much later period, seems to be quite as convincingly 
refuted by the fact that the reminiscences of the Alcestis are carried 
pretty well through the Trachinians, as was shown above. The view 
taken by Dr van Leeuwen and discussed by him at considerable 
length in the book just cited, that Sophocles was constantly touching 
up his plays, as modern poets change the text of successive editions 
of their works, can hardly be true, it should seem, to any great 
extent. Were it so, it would make the dating of many Greek plays 


11 add here what seems like an isolated reminiscence of the A/cestis in the 
Trachinians. Trach. 1044 sq. (Coryphaeus) Κλύουσ᾽ ἔφριξα τάσδε συμφοράς, φίλαι, | 
ἄνακτος, οἵαις οἷος wy ἐλαύνεται. Alc. 144 (Coryphaeus apostrophizing suffering 
ἄναξ) Ὧ τλῆμον, οἵας οἷος ὦν ἁμαρτάνεις. 


Sophocles II 


a far worse puzzle than it is. This is not the place to discuss the 
metrical questions involved in the thesis further than to say that 
Dr van Leeuwen in his Commentatio disregarded, as have most, the 
influence of emotional exaltation on the part of the fictitious speaker 
on the form of the Greek tragic trimeter. I have touched upon the 
matter in the metrical appendix to my edition of the Oedipus 
Tyrannus. 

It has been shown that Sophocles borrowed freely from Euri- 
pides’s Alcestis in the Trachinians, and itis a priori reasonable to 
infer that other marked likenesses between the Trachinians and 
other plays of Euripides are due to borrowing by the “Attic Bee.” 
Especially is this likely to be the case in a play the Euripidean 
character of which is so noticeable, as has often been remarked by 
scholars. We need not then wait until we have discussed the like- 
nesses between the Medea and the Trachinians before we take the 
next step toward the approximate dating of our play, but may with 
reasonable confidence regard Trach. 416 Aéy’, εἴ τι χρήζεις" 
καὶ yap οὐ σιγηλὸς ef. as a reminiscence of Eur. Supp/. 567 Δ ἐγ᾽, 
ei Te βούλει: Kal yap οὐ σιγηλὸς ef. with an improvement in one 
word.* We shall go further, also, and follow Dr Dieterich’s excel- 
lent confirmation of Professor von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s view 
of the relations of the Hercules Furens and the Trachinians. Dr 
Dieterich’s discussion in his Schlafscenen auf der attischen Biihne 
I have already referred to, and it is unnecessary to do more here 
than refer to his tentative dating of the Trachinians 419 B.c. (op. 
cit. p. 43). Surely it would seem that 419-410 B.c. is as large a 
latitude as we can allow in dating the Trachimians. But we must 
return now to the relations of the Trachinians and the Alcestis. 

To say, as Professor Jebb does in his introduction to the Trachi- 
mians (p. xxii), that the Hercules Furens and the Trachinians are 
the only two “experiments” in Greek literature of taking “the legend 
of Heracles as the basis of a tragedy” “of which we have any clear 
or definite knowledge” is true only in the narrowest sense of the 
words. It should be added that, if the legend of Heracles is not 
the basis of the Alcestis, yet that play is perhaps, as I have ventured 
to suggest in my introduction to it, the first attempt to bring Heracles 
as a tragic character—or, at least, a semi-tragic character—before a 


1Cf. Trach, 1184 and Alc. 1118. 


12 Greek Authors 


Greek audience. If we assume that the Alcestis was indeed a sort 
of dramatic exaltation of Heracles, we shall find that this tallies 
perfectly with a view of the relations of the Trachinians on the one 
hand and the Alcestis and the Hercules Furens on the other to which 
our discussion has been gradually leading us. Let us see what this 
view is. It may be put in a definite form somewhat as follows: 

Sophocles, much impressed by Euripides’s Hercules Furens, deter- 
mines to write a tragedy on a portion of the legend of Heracles. To 
this end he not only studies the Hercules Furens and adopts from 
it what serves his purpose, but also reads carefully what is probably 
the other Attic tragedy, or quasi-tragedy, that deals with Heracles, 
a play strong in emotion and scenically striking, which he has wit- 
nessed—and defeated—some twenty or more years earlier, the 
Alcestis. He writes thus under the spell of Euripides and pays his 
rival the sincerest compliment, that of imitation. 

It would have been well for the worshippers of Sophocles and, at 
the same time, detractors of Euripides had they better understood 
their idol’s state of mind towards some of Euripides’s work. But 
to return to our subject. We shall not be surprised, when we have 
learned to see why and how Sophocles came thus to imitate two of 
Euripides’s plays, if he furthermore drew for more than individual 
lines and brief suggestions upon another strong play of Euripides, 
a play that had the first place among Euripides’s four in the tragic 
contest of 431 B.c., when Sophocles was second and Euripides third, 
the Medea. But this is to encroach upon the next chapter. 


TI. 


The Trachinians and the Medea. 


The Euripidean character of the prologue of the Trachinians has 
been more than once commented upon. Hermann Schiitz in his 
Sophokleische Studien (Potsdam, 1890) puts the matter briefly and 
well when he writes (p. 390): “Der Prolog des Dramas erinnert an 
die Euripideische Manier, durch einen langeren Monolog den Zu- 
schauer in die Verhaltnisse einzufiihren; denn auf ihn, nicht auf die 
alte, mit allem genau bekannte Dienerin ist die ganze Rede der 
Deianira berechnet.” But the prologue of the Trachinians does not 





Sophocles “τὰ 


resemble that of the Alcestis; such reminiscence of that passage as 
is to be found, if at all, in the Trachinians is rather to be traced in 
vv. 248 sqq., where Heracles’s year-long servitude and its cause are 
narrated. On the other hand, the prologue of the Trachinians is 
more nearly than has been observed hitherto like that prologue 
among those of Euripides that are extant which is generally thought 
the best dramatically—the prologue of the Medea. About this the 
(somewhat Wilamowitzian) remarks of Dr Zielinski (Philol. 55, 
p. 522°) are so apt as to deserve quotation here. They are as 
follows: “Interessant ist, dass auch Euripides einmal den Versuch 
gemacht hat, den Prolog psychologisch zu motivieren—das ist der 
Prolog der Amme in der ‘Medea’; damit man es ihm glaube, hat er 
der Amme die Motivierung ausdriicklich in den-Mund gelegt 56 ff. 
ἐγὼ γὰρ εἰς τοῦτ᾽ ἐκβέβηκ᾽ ἀλγηδόνος, do’ ἵμερός μ’ ὑπῆλθε γῇ τε 
κοὐρανῷ λέξαι μολούσῃ δεῦρο δεσποίνης τύχας. Geglaubt hat es ihm 
aber doch niemand; wenigstens hat er den Versuch nicht wieder- 
holt.” Is it going too far to conjecture that even if we had the 
complete works of Euripides we should find this prologue nearly, if 
not quite, unique, and that Sophocles exercised very deliberate choice 
in selecting it for imitation? But let us look further into the rela- 
tion of the two prologues. 

In studying carefully the prologue of the Medea before I had 
begun the examination of the Trachinians the results of which I am 
now presenting I found myself brought to the conclusion that not 
only had the excisions proposed or put in practice by various 
scholars been erroneously suggested and made, but that there are 
no spurious verses in the prologue of the Medea as handed down 
to us. The details of the prologue of the Medea I shall discuss 
elsewhere; suffice it here to point out in passing that, if vv. 40-43 be 
condemned, vv. 38 and 39 and vv. 44 and 45 must keep them com- 
pany. This clean sweep of eight verses where there is no apparent 
reason for their insertion may: well stagger the boldest hewer of 
texts and drawer of squared hooks. As for the prologue of the 
Trachinians, repeated study of it has convinced me that it too con- 
tains no spurious verses. To me, as to Professor Campbell, vs. 465 


1Cf. especially τῷ λόγῳ (as it seems that we should read for τοῦ λόγου) δ᾽ οὐ χρὴ 
φθόνον, | γύναι, προσεῖναι Leds ὅτου πράκτωρ φανῇ ( Trach. 250 sq.) with the less formal ἡ 
apology Ζεὺς γὰρ κατακτὰς παῖδα τὸν ἐμὸν αἴτιος (A/c. 3). 


14” Greek Authors 


is a sufficient defence of vs. 25.1 Now this prologue of the Trachi- 
nians has likewise forty-eight verses. But is this equality in length 
of the two prologues anything more than a coincidence? Is there 
any likeness in the situations and the persons at the openings of the 
two plays? 

It has been noted by Dr Dieterich (op. cit. p. 43) as part of the 
general Euripidean character of the Trachinians that a τροφός is 
introduced. It may be said in passing that the term τροφός or ‘nurse’ 
is a convenient designation for such personages as the old woman- 
servant (the παλαιὸν οἴκων κτῆμα of the Medea and the γραῖα of 
the Trachinians), but that the designation τροφός is demonstrably 
correct only for the Hippolytus. However, that is a detail; Dr 
Dieterich’s observation is just. But we may go further. In the 
Medea it is the τροφός (to use the stock name) that speaks the 
prologue, describing the misery of the heroine as a deserted wife. 
In the Trachinians there is a decided gain from the point of view 
of the action of the play in making the heroine as deserted wife 
deliver the prologue and describe her miseries to the τροφός. And 
let it not be objected that the desertion of Deianira is different from 
that of Medea: Heracles has practically done what Jason had, as 
we find out in the sequel. The words λέκτρων ἄλλα βασίλεια 
κρείσσων δόμοισιν ἐπέστα (Med. 443-5) describe Deianira’s state 
quite as well as they do Medea’s. 

So much for the prologues: let us examine the other parallels 
between the Trachinians and the Medea. In both plays the heroine 
makes use of a poisoned garment. In the Medea the injured wife 
uses a poisoned garment (together with a poisoned diadem) to kill. 
her rival: in the Trachinians the injured wife uses a poisoned gar- 
ment to recover her husband’s affection. In the Medea the injured | 
wife uses “evil arts” wittingly: in the Trachinians the injured wife 
seeks to avoid the use of “evil arts,” but does so unwittingly, sup- 
posing that what she is employing is but a philtre. The parallels 
just cited involve differences and contrasts in the conduct of the two 
heroines. To these contrasts may be added others. Thus, in the 
Medea the injured wife is a barbarian: in the Trachinians she is a 


1Schiitz (Soph. Studien, p. 391) would keep the vs., but with some change. I 
would ask the candid reader whether μή μοι τὸ μέλλον ἄλγος ἐκφύοι ποτέ is much of an 
improvement on Sophocles’s verse. 





Sophocles 15 


Greek. The injured wife in the Medea exhibits barbarian manners: 
the injured wife in the Trachinians exhibits Greek manners. In the 
Medea the poisoned articles of dress are handled rather carelessly: 
in the Trachinians the poisoned.shirt is handled with great caution. 
In the Medea the heroine is a sorceress, and the element of magic 
is prominent: in the Trachinians the heroine is not a sorceress, and 
the element of magic is hardly present. Some of the points that have 
been set forth above call for discussion. 
In Trach. 582-6 Deianira says to the chorus, after she has de- 
scribed the preparation of the shirt for Heracles: 
Κακάς ye (ego: δὲ codd.) τέχνας (Blaydes: τόλμας codd.) 
μήτ᾽ ἐπισταίμην ἐγὼ 
μήτ᾽ ἐκμάθοιμι τάς τε τολμώσας στυγῶ’ ‘ 
φίλτροις δ᾽ ἐάν πως τήνδ᾽ ὑπερβαλώμεθα, 
μεμηχάνηται τοὔργον --- εἴ τι μὴ δοκῶ 
πράσσειν μάταιον " εἰ δὲ μή, πεπαύσομαι.᾽ 
Does not this read like a tacit criticism—or, perhaps better said, a 
covert criticism—of Euripides’s heroine? Is not the gentle and 
patient Deianira meant to be a foil to Euripides’s fiery-souled Col- 
chian? Indeed, do we not read in the Medea, in a speech of Jason’s 
that must represent, to a certain extent, the Greek point of view, this 
criticism of Medea’s murder of her children: Οὐκ ἔστιν ἥτις τοῦτ᾽ 
ἂν Ἑλληνὶς γυνὴ [ἔτλη ποθ’ (Aled. 1339 sq.)? Surely the con- 
jecture may be hazarded that Sophocles desired to depict in his 
Deianira the humaner spirit of the Greek wife, as contrasted with 
the unrestrained passion of the barbarian. The latter character did 
not suit the genius of him that was ever εὔκολος. 
I have noted above the careless manner in which the poisoned 
articles of dress appear to be handled in the Medea.” Their magic 


11 have omitted v. 585 (τὴν παῖδα καὶ θέλκτροισι τοῖς ἐφ᾽ “Hpaxde?) with Wunder 
(followed by Nauck) asspurious. It seems to belong to a familiar type of interpola- 
tion. 

2 It seems reasonable to suppose that at Med. 956-8 the magic articles of dress are 
brought out openly, not in a box, and so entrusted to the children that one takes the 
dress, the other the diadem. The poison will work only on the bride. — It may be 
noted here that Seneca, or whoever wrote the Hercules Octaeus, not only in other re- 
spects (see Herc, Oet. 500 sqq.) made a much more reasonable account of the adven- 
ture at the Evenus (Sophocles managed it pretty badly, as was anciently noted : see 
Schneidewin-Nauck on 7γαελ. 568), but also took much better care of the poison 


τό Greek Authors 


quality is treated as a matter of course, and but little regard seems 
to be had by the poet to the element of verisimilitude in the working 
of their poison. This carelessness must, I think, have struck other 
students of the Medea, as it had me even before I thought to com- 
pare the caution employed by Deianira in the Trachinians. The 
great pains taken by Sophocles in his play to lend a certain air of 
verisimilitude to the working of the poison—pains which have 
prompted Dr Zielinski to make of Sophocles an accomplished physi- 
cian and toxicologist—these are, I venture to think, but the attempt 
of Sophocles to improve on his rival’s treatment. Whether the 
poisoned garment was originally a part of the legend of Medea as 
employed by Euripides or was imported into it by him is a question 
that lies beyond the bounds of our present enquiry. 

It may not be out of place here to note a certain resemblance 
between Euripides’s Medea and Clytaemnestra as she is drawn by 
Aeschylus in the Agamemnon. Dr Zielinski thinks (op. cit. p. 51.611) 
that Euripides in his Electra vv. 1032 sqq. imitated Trach. 536 sqq.— 
a matter that we should like to be clearer about, inasmuch as it 
would aid us to a more exact dating of the Trachinians. The two 
passages are as follows: 

Trach. 536 sqq. 

κόρην yap — οἶμαι δ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἐζευγμένην --- 
λωβητὸν ἐμπόλημα τῆς ἐμῆς φρενὸς 
παρεσδέδεγμαι, φόρτον ὥστε ναυτίλος - 
καὶ νῦν δύ᾽ οὖσαι μίμνομεν μιᾶς ὑπὸ 
χλαΐνης ὑπαγκάλισμα." 
Eur. El. 1032 sqq. (Clytaemnestra loquitur) 

ἀλλ᾽ HAF (sc. Agamemnon) ἔχων μοι μαινάδ᾽ ἔνθεον κόρην 

λέκτροις τ᾽ ἐπεισέφρηκε καὶ νύμφα δύο 

ἐν τοῖσιν αὐτοῖς δώμασιν κατεῖχ᾽ ὁμοῦ. 

We might draw up the following brief scheme of comparison: 


1. Clytaemnestra and Cassandra (Agamemnon and Eur. Bic 1.ς.). | 
2. Medea and Glauce. 





there than Sophocles had done; for he makes Nessus give it to Deianira enclosed in 
one of his hooves, which he had happened to wrench off with his hand and split (v. 
522, guam forte saeva sciderat avolsam manu) ! 

1 The transposition of vv. 537 and 338 seems to me to be pretty clearly demanded 
by the sense of the sentence. 


Ct ὦ 


᾿ 
4 
P 





Sophocles 17 


3. Deianira and Tole. 

I and 3. Clytaemnestra and Deianira kill husband. 

Iand2. Clytaemnestra and Medea kill rival. 

2and 3. Medea and Deianira use poisoned garment. 

1and3. Rival brought into house. 

2and 3. Rivala second wife (or practically so in 3). 

rand 3. Rival taken in sack of a city. 

This comparison has, I venture to think, a certain value for the 
study of the development of tragic motives. 

Enough has been said already, I venture to think, to prove that in 
writing the Trachinians Sophocles had the Medea before him, and 
that in the case of this play, too, he paid Euripides the compliment 
of imitation. But I would further call attention to two passages in 
the Trachinians in which Sophocles seems to have been influenced 
in details by the Medea. In Trach. 602 Deianira describes the 
poisoned shirt to Lichas as τόνδε τανα φῆ (Wunder’s certain correc- 
tion: see Jebb ad Joc.) πέπλον. The fact that ταναὐφῆ is glossed 
by the Greek lexicographers by λεπτούφῇ and the inappropriateness 
of the term πέπλος to describe the garment in question (see on 
both points Jebb ad loc.) make it almost certain that Sophocles was 
thinking of the λεπτὸν πέπλον of Med. 786 and was improving on 
the adjective. Again, Heracles κόσμῳ τε χαίρων καὶ στολῇ (Trach. 
764) resembles, as has been noted (see Jebb ad /oc.), Glauce δώροις 
ὑπερχαίρουσα (Med. 1765). Even the phrase κόσμῳ te καὶ στολῇ 


is more appropriate to Medea’s double gift than to Deianira’s single 
one. 


III. 
Cicero’s Translation of Trach. 1046-1102. 


A more careful comparison than has yet, so far as I am aware, 
been made of the translation of Trach. 1046-1102 which Cicero 
inserted in the Tusculanae Disputationes, 2. 8, 20—9Q, 22, will prove 
of value, not only for our knowledge of the text of this portion of 
the Trachinians, but also for our knowledge of Cicero’s acquaintance 
with Greek and his manner of translating it. I have deemed it the 
clearest and simplest method of pursuing this comparison to place 


1A garment, but not a poisoned one, is an important part of the apparatus of the 
murder in the Agamemnon. 


18 Greek Authors 


side by side the translation and the original and then to append 
thereto certain critical and explanatory notes. The text of Cicero 
is based on Baiter-Kayser and Mueller, that of Sophocles on Jebb. 
The two passages are numbered continuously to facilitate reference. 
I shall use L. 1, 2, etc., in referring to the Latin; G. 1, 2, etc., in 
referring to the Greek. The italics are intended to mark those words 
and phrases in which Cicero most closely Graeca expressit. 


O multa dictu gravia, perpessu aspera, 
quae corpore exanclata atque animo pertuli; 
nec mthi Iunonis terror implacabilis 
nec tantwm invexit tristis Eurystheus mali, 

5 quantum una vaecors Oeneo patre edita. 
Haec me inretivit veste furiali inscium 
quae lateri inhaerens morsu lacerat viscera 
urguensque graviter pulmonum haurit spiritus; 
iam decolorem sanguinem omnem exsorbuit: 

10 sic corpus clade horribili absumptum extabuit, 
ipse inligatus peste interimor textilt. 

Hos non hostilis dextra, non terra edita 
moles Gigantum, non biformato impetu 
Centaurus ictus corpori inflixit meo, 

15 non Graia vis, non barbara ulla immanitas, 
non saeva terris gens relegata ultimis 
quas peragrans undique omnem ecferitatem expuli, 
sed feminae vir feminea interimor manu. 

O nate, vere hoc nomen usurpa patri; 

20 ne me occidentem matris superet caritas. 
Huc adripe ad me manibus abstractam piis; 
iam cernam mene an illam potiorem putes. 
Perge, aude, nate, inlacrima patris pestibus, 
miserere: gentes nostras flebunt misertas. 

25 Heu, virginalem me ore ploratum edere 
quem vidit nemo ulli ingemiscentem malo, 
Ecfeminata virtus adflicta occidit. 

Accede, nate, adsiste, miserandum aspice 
evisceratum corpus laceratum patris. 

30 Videte, cuncti; tuque, caelestum sator, 
iace, obsecro, im me vim coruscam fulminis. 


i tl νυ 


"= 





1046 


1050 


1055 
10 


1060 
15 


1065 
20 


1070 
25 


1075 
30 


1080 
35 


Sophocles 


Ἂ πολλὰ δὴ Kal θερμὰ Kod λόγῳ κακὰ 
καὶ χερσὶ καὶ νώτοισι μοχθήσας ἐγώ" 
” “ y > » ε Ν 
κοῦ πω τοιοῦτον οὔτ᾽ ἄκοιτις ἡ Διὸς 
προὔθηκεν οὔθ᾽ ὃ στυγνὸς Εὐρυσθεὺς ἐμοί, 
οἷον τόδ᾽ ἡ δολῶπις Οἰνέως κόρη 
καθῆψεν ὦμοις τοῖς ἐμοῖς Ἐρινύων 
ὑφαντὸν ἀμφίβληστρον, ᾧ διόλλυμαι * 
πλευραῖσι γὰρ προσμαχθὲν ἐκ μὲν ἐσχάτας 
, / 4 / > > 4 
βέβρωκε σάρκας πλεύμονός T ἀρτηρίας 
ῥοφεῖ ξυνοικοῦν, ἐκ δὲ χλωρὸν αἷμά μου 
πέπωκεν ἤδη, καὶ διέφθαρμαι δέμας 
Ν “ 3 / Lod ‘\ / 
τὸ πᾶν ἀφράστῳ τῇδε χειρωθεὶς πέδῃ. 
Καὶ ταῦτα λόγχη πεδιὰς οὔθ᾽ ὃ γηγενὴς 
Ν / ” [4 ’ 
στρατὸς Γιγάντων οὔτε θήρειος βία 
οὔθ᾽ Ἑλλὰς οὔτ᾽ ἄγλωσσος οὔθ᾽ ὅσην ἐγὼ 
γαῖαν καθαίρων ἱκόμην ἔδρασέ πω - 
T γυνὴ δὲ θῆλυς οὖσα κοὐκ ἀνδρὸς φύσιν TF 
μόνη με δὴ καθεῖλε φασγάνου δίχα. --- 
Ὦ παῖ, γενοῦ μοι παῖς ἐτήτυμος γεγὼς 
Ν Ν A Ν 3, 4 / 
καὶ μὴ TO μητρὸς ὄνομα πρεσβεύσῃς πλέον. 
Δός μοι χεροῖν σαῖν αὐτὸς ἐξ οἴκου λαβὼν 
> ~ Ν a ε ἰδῶ LA 
ἐς χεῖρα τὴν τεκοῦσαν, ὡς εἰδῶ σάφα, 
εἰ τοὐμὸν ἀλγεῖς μᾶλλον ἢ κείνης, δρῶν. 
[λωβητὸν εἶδος ἐν δίκῃ κακούμενον 
Te > ’ὔ Δ δ ’ὔ ,ὔ 
, ὦ τέκνον, τόλμησον οἴκτιρόν τέ με 
πολλοῖσιν οἰκτρόν, ὅστις ὥστε παρθένος 
βέβρυχα κλαίων ---- καὶ τόδ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς ποτὲ 
τόνδ᾽ ἄνδρα φαίη πρόσθ᾽ ἰδεῖν δεδρακότα, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀστένακτος αἰὲν εἱπόμην κακοῖς " 
νῦν δ᾽ ἐκ τοιούτου θῆλυς ηὕρημαι τάλας. 
Καὶ νῦν προσελθὼν στῆθι πλησίον πατρός, 
σκέψαι δ᾽ ὁποίας ταῦτα συμφορᾶς ὕπο 
πέπονθα " δείξω γὰρ τάδ᾽ ἐκ καλυμμάτων. 
Ἰδοὺ θεᾶσθε, πάντες, ἄθλιον δέμας " 
ὁρᾶτε τὸν δύστηνον ὡς οἰκτρῶς ἔχω. 
Avi, ὦ τάλας, αἰαῖ - 
ἔθαλψεν ἄτης σπασμὸς ἀρτίως ὅδ᾽ αὖ, 
dujée πλευρῶν + οὐδ᾽ ἀγύμναστόν p ἐᾶν 
ἔοικεν ἡ τάλαινα διαβόρος νόσος. 


19 


20 Greek Authors 


Nunc, nunc dolorum anxiferi torquent vertices, 
nunc serpit ardor. O ante victrices manus, 
o pectora, o terga, o lacertorum tori, 

35 vestrone pressu quondam Nemeaeus leo 
frendens efflavit graviter extremum halitum? 
Haec dextra Lernam taetra mactata excetra 
pacavit? Haec bicorporem adflixit manum? 
Erymanthiam haec vastificam abiecit beluam? 

40 Haec e Tartarea tenebrica abstractum plaga 
tricipitem eduxit hydra generatum canem? 
Haec interemit tortu multiplicabili 
draconem auriferam obtutu adservantem arborem? 
Multa alia victrix nostra gustavit manus, 

45 nec quisquam e nostris spolia cepit laudibus. 


L. 1 bears witness to the fact (as has been noted: see Jebb ad 
loc.) that Cicero’s text of Sophocles was the same as ours in the 
words καὶ λόγῳ, for which Bothe’s κοὺ λόγῳ is generally (and 
rightly) accepted, as above. It seems probable that the corruption 
καὶ for xod was universal in the texts of Sophocles in Cicero’s time, 
and that it is one of the very early blunders in Sophocles’s text, like 
the confusion of the negatives at the beginning of the Antigone. 
(I hold ἄτης ἄτερ in Ant. 4 to be original: see Classical Review 


XIII, 386.)* It may be added that Wunder and van Herwerden 


thought that the error in Sophocles’s text lay, not in καὶ but in the 
following words. The latter of these scholars writes in his Exerci- 
tationes Criticae, p. 127: Quod reponendum suspicabar: καὶ λόγων 
πέρα, iamdudum ante me proposuisse Wunderum nunc video. Certa 
est, si qua alia, emendatio.—In L. 2 (where, by the way, it seems 
very likely that Cicero wrote exanclavi, not exanclata) it has been 
supposed that Cicero’s animo bears witness to a text different from 
the traditional one. The truth seems to be, as Dr Zielinski appears 
to hint (“Excurse zu den Trachinierinnen,” Philologus 55 [1896], 
625), that Cicero crossed, or conflated, his translation of Sophocles 
with the reminiscence of Eur. Ad. 837, where Heracles cries: Ὦ 
πολλὰ τλᾶσα καρδία καὶ χεὶρ ἐμή. This is the more probable from 
the fact that we have a certain case below of a passage in which 
Sophocles and Euripides are conflated by Cicero in his translation. 
It may be noted in passing that the Greek does not warrant Cicero’s 
1 See below, p. 52. 


a ee 


Sophocles 21 


1085 Ὦγναξ ᾽Αιδη, δέξαι μ᾽: 
40 & Διὸς ἀκτίς, παῖσον. 

Ἔνσεισον ὦναξ, ἐγκατάσηψον βέλος, 

πάτερ, κεραυνοῦ - δαίνυται γὰρ αὖ πάλιν, 

ἤνθηκεν ἐξώρμηκεν. Ὦ χέρες χέρες, 


1090 α 
9° ὦ γῶτα καὶ στέρν᾽, ὦ φίλοι βραχίονες, 


45 AA ΒΗ 
ὑμεῖς δὲ κεῖνοι δὴ καθέσταθ᾽ οἱ ποτὲ 


Νεμέας ἔνοικον, βουκόλων ἀλάστορα, 
, > ΕΣ ,ὔ > ta 
λέοντ᾽, ἄπλατον θρέμμα κἀπροσήγορον, 


βίᾳ κατηργάσασθε Λερναίαν θ᾽ ὕδραν 
1095 


~ > Ψ ε ΄ Χ 
; διφυᾶ τ᾽ ἄμεικτον ἱπποβάμονα στρατὸν 
ο 


θηρῶν ---- ὑβριστὴν ἄνομον ὑπέροχον βίαν --- 
᾿Ἐρυμάνθιόν τε θῆρα τόν θ᾽ ὑπὸ χθονὸς 
“Αιδου τρίκρανον σκύλακ᾽ — ἀπρόσμαχον τέρας, 


δεινῆς Εἰχιδνης θρέμμα ---- τόν τε χρυσέων 
1100 


ΙΣ δράκοντα μήλων φύλακ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτοις τόποις. 


ἔΛλλλων τε μόχθων μυρίων ἐγευσάμην 
ρ μην, 
nr cal ral “ 
κοὐδεὶς τροπαῖ ἔστησε τῶν ἐμῶν χερῶν. 


treating πολλὰ κακὰ as ἃ vocative, or rather in translating as if 
the Greek had been something like: Ὦ πολλὰ δὴ... κακά, ἃ. 

μοχθήσας ἔχω. But this is a mere detail—In L. 4 sq. tantum— 
quantum may indicate that Cicero read τοσοῦτον --- ὅσον in G. 3 and 
5. He could just as well have written tale—quale, so far as the 
verse is concerned. But this is uncertain——L. 5 (in which I have 
substituted Bentley’s Oeneo patre for the traditional Oenei partu, 
on which phrase see Sorof ad loc.) is interesting, furthermore, as 
indicating either how Cicero’s Greek text was pointed or how he 
thought it should be pointed. He seems to have made a full stop 
after κόρη (G. 5) and to have missed the construction of οἷον τόδ᾽ 
... καθῆψεν. This criticism, if just, does not speak well for Cicero’s 
knowledge of Greek. But we shall find other things quite as bad. 
It may be noted here that vaecors is no translation of SoAéms.—The 
me imscium of L. 6, where we should expect a translation of the 
ὑφαντὸν Of G. 7, looks as though Cicero had read ἄφαντον (SC. pe): 
but, when we come to his translation of G. 12 in L. 11, we find 
texiili answering to ddpdorw. Had Cicero’s text ἄφραστον in the 
place of ὑφαντὸν, and ὑφαντῷ in the place of déppdorw? or did he delib- 
erately shift those words in his translation to suit a whim? A hard 


22 Greek Authors 


question that to answer.—In L. 7 viscera seems clearly to be a trans- 
lation of ἐσχάτας σάρκας (ἃ. 8 sq.).—The urguens of L. 8 looks as 
though Cicero had had before him something other than ξυνοικοῦν 
of G. 10 (ε. g. €vveipyov); but I venture to think that we are not 
justified in assuming that such is the case. When we remember 
how constantly συνοικεῖν is used of wedlock, and how Horace 
(Carm. τ. 5, 2) uses urguere in about the sense of amplecti of a 
lover’s embrace, have we not, perhaps, the explanation of Cicero’s 
urguens here?—In L. 9 decolorem is, of course, a bad, though in 
form a very literal, translation of χλωρὸν. It is plain here that Cicero 
did not understand his Greek.—F rom corpus extabuit in L. τὸ it is 
reasonably certain that Cicero’s text had not διέφθαρμαι δέμας, the 
prevailing reading in G. 11, but διέφθαρται δέμας, which (auctore 
Jebb) is the reading of B (= cod. Parisin. 2787, saec. xiv). Cicero’s 
Greek text here departs from the current of the tradition that has 
come down to us, but in a minor point.—L. 13 moles. Cicero might, 
as we see by comparing L. 38 with G. 50, have rendered more 
exactly by manus.—The fact that in L. 13 sq. Ojpeos Bia of G. 14 
is answered by biformato impetu Centaurus warrants the question 
whether Cicero read θήρειος and not φήρειος --- Κενταύρειος, Centaureus. 
It may fairly be queried whether Sophocles himself may not 
have written φήρειος here and below (G. 51) φηρῶν, where we 
now read θηρῶν. Homer’s reference to the Centaurs (A 268) as 
φηρσὶν ὀρεσκῴοισι would be very familiar to Cicero.—But it is of even 
greater interest to observe how Cicero misunderstood and mistrans- 
lated Bia (G. 14). The words οὔτε Ojpeos (or φήρειος ὃ) Bia | οὔθ᾽ 
Ἑλλὰς (SC. γῆ) οὔτ᾽ ἄγλωσσος (== βάρβαρος, sc. γῇ) he took 85 Ξε οὔτε 
θήρειος (φήρειος ἢ) Bia οὔθ᾽ Ἑλλὰς « Bia> οὔτ᾽ ἄγλωσσος «βία», and, besides 
that, he thought that βία, instead of being part of a periphrasis, had 
its most literal force. His impetu, vis, and immanitas demonstrate 
this most clearly. This is certainly staggering; but we must accept 
it—In L. 17 it may be noted that peragrans represents ἱκόμην and 
undique omnem ecferitatem expuli καθαίρων in G. 16. Cicero trans- 
lated pretty freely at this point and gets the terris relegata ultimis 
of L. 16 partly out of the γαῖαν of G. 16 and partly out of the notion 
of extent suggested in the ὅσην of G. 15.—L. 18 (where feminae 
for the traditional feminea seems to have been suggested by Bentley 
first) condenses into one verse G. 17 and 18, and Cicero comes out 


Sophocles 23 


almost even in number of verses with the first well-marked division 
of the Greek. Unfortunately, his Latin gives us no light on the 
original reading of the surely corrupt G. 17. Mudge’s conjecture 
θῆλυς κοὐκ ἔχουσ᾽ ἀνδρὸς φύσιν seems pretty satisfactory and could easily 
have given rise to the traditional text. It is certainly ‘elegans con- 
iectura, as Hermann says.—In L. 21 piis would presumably mean 
‘dutiful,’ as acting in accordance with a father’s command. But the 
word answers to nothing in the Greek, and it is just possible that 
Cicero wrote tuis (= σαῖν G. 21).—From L. 22 it is quite clear that 
G. 24 was not in Cicero’s text. Here Cicero’s text was different 
from that which has come down to us in lacking an interpolation. 
The interpolation, as Nauck rightly judged it to be, is due to some 
one, of a time later than Cicero’s (in all probability), that failed to 
understand ὁρῶν in Zrach. 1068. It goes with εἰδῶ cdda—that I 
may know surely by the witness of my own eyes (δρῶν) whether 
it is for me that you feel the more or for her’—, but our interpolator 
understood ‘that I may know surely whether it is for me that you 
feel the more or for her when you see—’ and so wanted an object for 
ὁρῶν. Surely the case is a plain one. I add that Cicero’s rendering 
Of εἰδῶ σάφα ὁρῶν by cernam is one of his best touches, really a lucky 
hit.—The expansion of πολλοῖσιν οἰκτρόν in G. 31 into gentes nostras 
flebunt miserias (L. 24) reads like a reminiscence of the mourning 
of the nations with Prometheus in Aesch. Prom. 406-413, a passage 
that was doubtless very familiar to Cicero. He translates from the 
Prom. Vinct. in Tusc. 3. 31, 76; and here within a few lines he 
begins his translation from the Prometheus Solutus.—In L. 28-33 
(med.) Cicero, who in the first division of the speech had kept pace 
very closely in number of verses with his Greek original and who up 
to this point has 27 verses against 29, begins to grow sketchier in his 
treatment, as though he were growing weary of his task. He omits 
the greater part of Gr. 33 (δείξω yap... καλυμμάτων), and renders what 
remains of Gr. 32 sq. with great freedom. Of G. 34-36 only ᾿Ἰδοὺ 
θεᾶσθε, πάντες, is rendered. He omits, also, to translate G. 40 sq. 
and G. 43 sq. from δαίνυται to ἐξώρμηκεν. What remains of G. 37-43 
he renders pretty loosely and with a very free arrangement. Thus: 
nunc serpit ardor (L. 33) is made out of G. 37 (ardor from 
ἔθαλψεν ); nunc, nunc dolorum...vertices (L. 32) is made out of 
G. 38 sq.; and tuque...fulminis (L. 30 sq.) is from G. 42 sq. 


24 Greek Authors 


(“Evoagoy . . . κεραυνοῦ). Sir Richard Jebb’s remark in defence of 
Trach. 1069, that “Cicero wholly ignores vv. 1085 ff.: he ignores 
vv. 1080-1084 also, except in so far as their general sense is blended 
with his version of 1088 f., daivvra... ἐξώρμηκεν,᾽ may be compared 
with this.—The substance merely of G. 47-49 (med.) is given in 
L. 35 sq., and L. 36 is practically all Cicero.—It is curious to note 
that in L. 37 excetra represents ὕδραν of G. 49, whereas in L. 41 
hydra is used to represent ’Exiévys of G. 54, which Cicero evidently 
took for a common noun. Cicero probably connected excetra and 
ἔχιδνα etymologically : he therefore reversed ὕδραν and ἐχίδνης (as he 
understood it) in his translation. This lends colour to the supposi- 
tion that he reversed the adjectives in G. 7 and 12.—In rendering 
G. 51 and 53 Cicero omits, as in the case of G. 48, the somewhat 
trailing descriptive epithets of Sophocles——We come now to what 
is in some ways the most interesting point of the whole translation. 
Cicero expresses ἃ. 54 sq. τόν τε χρυσέων | δράκοντα μήλων φύλακ᾽ ἐπ᾽ 
ἐσχάτοις τόποις (where, by the way, Nauck was probably right in 
thinking τόποις a gloss; his χθονός may well be what Sophocles 
wrote) by: Haec interemit tortu multiplicabili | draconem auriferam 
obtutu adservantem arborem. Here draconem represents δράκοντα, 
auriferam arborem fairly well reproduces χρυσέων μήλων, and adser- 
vantem (though hardly obtutu adservantem) gives the thought of 
φύλακ. But where does the rest come from? Plainly out of 
Euripides’s Medea or Ennius’s version of it; for in Med. 480-482 
we read: δράκοντά θ᾽ ὃς πάγχρυσον ἀμπέχων δέρος | σπείραις ἔσῳζε πολυ- 
πλόκοις ἄυπνος dv | κτείνασ᾽ ἀνέσχον σοι φάος σωτήριον. Here we have 
the original of tortu multiplicabili (σπείραις πολυπλόκοις) and also the 
original of obtutu adservantem (ἔσῳζε ἄυπνος ὦν). This proves for 
the text of Cicero that the conjecture observantem is without foun- 
dation. It looks, too, as if κτείνασ᾽ were the original of imteremit. 
If that be so, we have evidence as early as Cicero’s time (and per- 
haps as early as Ennius’s) for κτείνασ᾽, for which the clever sug- 
gestion κοιμῶσ᾽ has been made. If κοιμῶσ᾽ is what Euripides wrote, 
the corruption is probably an early one.'—In L. 44 it is perfectly 

1 [See Professor Earle’s edition of the Medea Introd. p. 53. “‘ Frag. xciv, p. 260 
Ribbeck : Nén commemoro quéd draconis saevi sopivi impetum, may be from Ennius’s 
version of Eur. Med. 480-482. If this be so, Ennius would seem to have had κοιμῶσ᾽, 


not κτείνασ᾽, in his text of v. 482.” Also critical appendix, on v. 482. “Ἕκοιμῶσ᾽ 
Barthold. This is ingenious and may be right.”] 


Sophocles 25 


plain that gustavit (representing ἐγευσάμην) is what Cicero wrote, 
not /ustravit, which is the reading of the Mss. Any intelligent scribe 
staggered by the unfamiliar metaphor would have been likely to 
substitute the familiar lustravit for the strange gustavit. 

In conclusion it may be remarked that the study of this translation 
enables us to estimate with greater justice the degree of literalness 
with which we are to take Cicero’s reference to the Roman plays 
that were doubtless his models as “fabellas Latinas ad verbum e 
Graecis expressas” (de fin. I. 2, 4); and we can understand, too, 
from the kind of knowledge—or ignorance—of classic Greek that he 
displays how he could quote with apparent satisfaction (ad fam. 
7, 6) Ennius’s murdering of Eur. Med. 214 sqq. (See PAPA. 
1900 [Special Session], xxviii sq.*) 


NOTES, ON SOPHOCLES TRACHINIAE? 
V. 55. 
ἀνδρὸς κατὰ ζήτησιν οὐ πέμπεις τινά. 
Neither Mr Blaydes nor Professor Jebb notices what I believe to 
be the most apposite parallel to κατὰ ζήτησιν here, viz. Eur. Cycl. 14 
σέθεν κατὰ ζήτησιν. 


1[The abstract of Prof. Earle’s paper in PAPA. /. c. was as follows : 

In the discussion of Eur. Med. 214-224, an attempt was made to show that 
Ennius, in making the remarkable translation of vv. 214-218 which we find in Cic. 
ad, fam. 7, 6, had before him the traditional text, save perhaps that for δύσκλειαν in 
v. 218 he read (what Prinz extracted from the Scholia) δύσνοιαν. Inv. 215 Elmsley 
showed that Ennius probably read μέμψησθ᾽ (so L). An English version of the verses 
in question from Ennius’s point of view was essayed, thus: ‘ Corinthian ladies, I left 
home. Don’t find any fault with me; for I know that many people have, some of 
them become distinguished abroad, others of them at home—these from not going 
about have won infamy [assuming for the moment that Ennius read δύσκλειαν} and 
sloth to boot.’ Ennius would thus have made a heavy pause after δόμων (214), have 
taken πολλοὺς βροτῶν as distributed in τοὺς μὲν---τοὺς δ᾽, have regarded τοὺς μὲν as placed 
ὑπερβατόν after σεμνοὺς γεγῶτας instead of logically (from his point of view) before 
those words, have taken OIA in v. 217 85 Ξεε οἵδ᾽ (an anacoluthic resumption of τοὺς 
δ᾽ at the head of the vs.), and, finally, have thought that ἀφ᾽ ἡσύχου ποδὸς resumed 
adverbially the adjectival ἐν θυραίοις (note his propter ea), It may be added that sunt 
improbati is a fitter rendering of δύσνοιαν ἐκτήσαντο (as Ennius misunderstood the 
idiom) than of δύσκλειαν ἐκτήσαντο. It was further urged that vv. 219-221 are 
misplaced, Wyttenbach’s objection to yap where it stands being well taken. It was 
proposed to place these verses after v. 224.—See also Prof. Earle’s edition of the 
Medea, Ὁ. 51.} ᾿ 

2 [From The Classical Review, vol. VII, (1893), pp- 449-451. 


26 Greek Authors 


V. 56 sq. 
εἰ πατρὸς 
νέμοι τιν᾽ ὥραν τοῦ καλῶς πράσσειν δοκεῖν. 
These words cannot be sound as they stand. A comparison of vv. 
65 sg. (σὲ πατρὸς οὕτω δαρὸν ἐξενωμένου | τὸ μὴ πυθέσθαι ποῦ ἐστιν αἰσχύνην 
φέρει «ν;») seems to show clearly that the slave-woman’s speech 
contained a more pointed reflection on Hyllus than our present text 
gives. Therefore I propose to read πάρος | νέμει (the latter word is 
thus given in some MSS.). The Homericism in the construction of 
πάρος with the present is, I think, justifiable. Certainly ‘if hitherto 
he has shown any regard for fair fame’ is the sort of sentiment we 
should expect here under the circumstances.* 
V. 74 Sq. 
Εὐβοῖδα χώραν φασὶν, Εὐρύτου πόλιν, 
ἐπιστρατεύειν αὐτὸν, ἢ μέλλειν ἔτι. 
In ν. 75 I suspect that αὐτὸν has supplanted αὖ νιν (cf. Ant. 602). 
φασὶν---νιν in the present passage thus repeats φασί νιν in v. 70, the 
av answering to μὲν in v. 69. 
Νν. 92. 5Χ. 
χώρει νυν, ὦ παῖ" καὶ γὰρ ὑστέρῳ τό γ᾽ εὖ 
πράσσειν, ἐπεὶ πύθοιτο, κέρδος ἐμπολᾷ. 
πύθοιτο has been made from πύθοιο in L,—a Verschlimmerung of the 
most pronounced sort. We should read thus: 
καὶ yap ὑστέρῳ τό γ᾽ εὖ 
πράσσειν---ἐπεὶ πύθοιο---κέρδος ἐμπολᾷ. 
‘For even though one be late, yet success—for I pray that you may 
get news—brings gain.’ The prayer of Deianira thus echoes the 
promise of Hyllus (vv. 90 sq.). Mr Blaydes, with his accustomed 
acuteness, remarks that ᾿ πύθοιο may perhaps be the true reading,’ 
but goes no farther,—indeed he does not seem to appreciate the 
merits of the case.? 
V. 148 sqq. 
ἕως τις ἀντὲ παρθένου γυνὴ ἡ 
κληθῇ, λάβῃ 7’ ἐν νυκτὶ φροντιδων μέρος, 
ἤτοι πρὸς ἀνδρὸς ἢ τέκνων φοβουμένη. 
1 [In reading πάρος for πατρὸς Prof. Earle (see his note C. R. ix (1895), p. 395) had 
been anticipated by Mr H. W. Hayley.] 


2 [Professor Earle compared here O. 7. v. goo, where he read in his edition of the 
play γένοι᾽ after Wecklein. ] . 





Sophocles 27 


The expression of vy. 148-9 is charming. But the delicacy of 
λάβῃ τ᾽ ἐν νυκτὶ φροντιδων μέρος seemed to some one to need a little 
explanation; therefore he added ἤτοι πρὸς dvdpos: some one else 
seems to have added ἢ τέκνων: yet another, who was skilled to ‘roll 
out a rhesis’ and ‘stiffen’ words (but not ‘by wisdom’) ‘out into a 
line, completed for us the fair trimeter numbered 150, which it 
were a kindness to Sophocles to bracket—at least. (I am, of course, 
aware that others have rejected the verse.) 

Vv. 166 sq. 

τότ᾽ ἢ θανεῖν χρείη σφε τῷδε τῷ χρόνῳ 

ἢ τοῦθ᾽ ὑπεκδραμόντά τοῦ χρόνου τέλος 

τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη ζῆν ἀλυπήτῳ βίῳ. 
ὑπεκδραμόντα should not be altered. It is a familiar Euripidean meta- 
phor drawn from a ship that outruns, or outrides, a storm. But 
τοῦ χρόνου SO soon after τῷ χρόνῳ (and nearly under it) has been 
justly called in question. I cannot think highly of Mr Margoliouth’s 
σὺν θεοῖς. My own conjecture is που μόρου, which I find confirmed 
(so far, at least, as the latter word is concerned) by Euripides (as 
we might indeed expect) ; for in Andr. 414 we read tv δ᾽ ὑπεκδράμῃς 
μόρον (quoted also by Mr Blaydes but not utilized). 

Vv. 178 sqq. 

ἐπεὶ καταστεφῆ 
στείχονθ᾽ ὁρῶ τιν᾽ ἄνδρα πρὸς χαρὰν λόγων. 

Professor Jebb says that π. x. λόγων ‘refers to καταστεφῆ᾽ ; but I 
cannot so understand it. καταστεφῆ στείχοντα forms too close a unity 
to be thus separated. Rather join π. x. λόγων with the second ele- 
ment στείχοντα (which amounts to joining with κατ. στείχ.). This 
supports the conjecture εἰσορμῶσι πρὸς χαρὰν βορᾶς in Ant. 30, in 
which I was long anticipated by Mr Blaydes: καταστεφῆ στείχ. 
a. x. λόγων, which depicts a mutual joy, seems well illustrated by 
Ant. 148 sgg. ἀλλὰ yap ἃ μεγαλώνυμος ἦλθε Nixa | τᾷ πολυαρμάτῳ ἀντι- 
χαρεῖσα On Ba. 

Vv. 196 sqq. 

τὸ yap ποθοῦν ἕκαστος ἐκμαθεῖν θέλων 
οὐκ ἂν μεθεῖτο, πρὶν καθ᾽ ἡδονὴν κλύειν. 

τὸ ποθοῦν is one of those phrases that (mca guidem sententia) Carty 
about them an air of genuineness. The trouble seems to lie solely 


28 Greek Authors 


in ἐκμαθεῖν. Why may we not suppose this to have arisen from 
ἐκπλῆσαι, With μαθών added as an explanatory gloss? 

V5-516. 

μόνα δ᾽ εὔλεκτρος ἐν μέσῳ Κύπρις ῥαβδονόμει ξυνοῦσα. 

Is ξυνεῖσα possible here (notwithstanding the sense that ξυνιέναι 
elsewhere bears in the tragedians) as a Homericism, in the sense of 
committere? Certainly ‘acted as umpire after bringing them to- 
gether in strife’ is more vigorous than the sense conveyed by the 
traditional text. μάχᾳ for μόνα were perhaps too rash. 


Vv. 608 sqq. 
πρὶν κεῖνος αὐτὸν φανερὸς ἐμφανῶς σταθεὶς 
δείξῃ θεοῖσιν ἡμέρᾳ ταυροσφάγῳ. 

φανερός (‘made from φανερῶς in L’) is pretty clearly a gloss on ἐμφανῶς 
that has got into the text and ejected something. I would suggest 
αὐτὸν ἐμφανῶς, θυτὴρ σταθείς (suggested by v. 1192, as was Froelich’s. 
conjecture φανερὸν ἐμφανὴς θυτήρ). 

Vv. 672 sqq. 

τοιοῦτον ἐκβέβηκεν, οἷον, ἢν φράσω, 
γυναῖκες ὑμῖν (v. 2. ἡμῖν) θαῦμ᾽ ἀνέλπιστον μαθεῖν. 

The second verse seems clearly wrong. The dative in the pronoun 
cannot well be construed, nor does the emendation ὑμᾶς seem to 
touch the root of the evil. The corruption lies most probably, as it 
seems to me, in γυναῖκες, which I conjecture to have supplanted a 
word with which the dative was to be construed. This word was, I 
believe, πάρεστιν. The presence of γυναῖκες can easily be accounted 
for as a gloss explaining ὑμῖν, or rather clearly indicating the second 
person, not the first. γυναῖκες has, I think, similarly effected an 
entrance in Eur. 7. 294 (as a gloss on aide), where I conjecture: 
πάρεισιν. 


V. 903. 
κρύψασ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ἔνθα μή τις εἰσίδοι. 

Professor Jebb’s explanation of ἔνθα---εἰσίδοι as an outgrowth of 
the ‘deliberative construction’ calls for an emphatic protest. The 
local-temporal ἔνθα is here, as elsewhere, merely following in the 
footsteps of iva, which itself is sometimes followed by the future 
after the usual fashion of ἔνθα: cf. e.g. Trach. 1157 sgg. In such a 
passage as Eur. (νεῖ. 345 sgg. ἀλλ᾽ ἕσπετ᾽ εἴσω, τῷ κατ᾽ αὔλιον θεῷ | W’— 
εὐωχῆτέ με it may not be unfair to give ἵνα a local sense. 


Sophocles 29 


V. 941 sqq. 
κλαίων δθούνεκ᾽ ἐκ δυοῖν ἔσοιθ᾽ ἅμα, 
πατρός τ᾽ ἐκείνης τ᾽, ὠρφανισμένος βίου. 

For βίου Wakefield corrected Biov, which is accepted by Jebb, 
though seemingly without sufficient warrant. βίᾳ would seem far 
more natural. It may be noted that in v. 1015 we find what looks 
like the same corruption. Here for βίου Wakefield reads Bia. 


SOPHOCLES, TRACHINIAE 26-48. 


A Study in Interpretation.* © 


Deianira prologizes with the tale of her sorrows. This falls into 
two parts: the sorrows of her wooing and the sorrows of her 
wedded life. The former part closes with the fight of Achelous and 
Heracles. Of this Deianira cannot tell the details: only a disin- 
terested spectator could do that. As for her, she sat stricken 
with fear lest her beauty find her pain at last. (This paraphrase 
of vv. 21-25 brings out the thought that underlies ἀταρβὴς τῆς θέας 
in v. 23 and shows that v. 25 which has been condemned by Dobree, 
Hartung and Nauck, has its force in the context.) So she sat in 
mortal terror; ‘but at last Zeus as umpire ( ἀγώνιος ) ended the con- 
test (for we unconsciously think of τέλος as adverb as well as object 
of ἔθηκε) well—if indeed it was well; for though as bride to 
Heracles adjudged with him I took my stand, ever since have I 
been nursing a continuous succession of fears.’ We must pause 
here a moment to defend the interpretation just offered. 

The words τέλος δ᾽ ἔθηκε Ζεὺς ἀγώνιος καλῶς, | εἰ δὴ καλῶς (vv. 26 sq.) 
are plain enough. Of them we need only say that τέλος with its 
aorist ἔθηκε marks sharply the conclusion of the action expressed by 
ἥμην (v. 24), brings ο΄ δὴ end the terrified sitting of Deianira. The 
importance of this observation will be apparent presently. In the 
following sentence yap obviously introduces a reason for the added 
εἰ δὴ καλῶς. The participle ξυστᾶσ᾽ (v. 28) is naturally concessive. 
Thus much is clear; but the construction of λέχος, the meaning of 
κριτὸν, and the meaning and possible incorrectness of ξυστᾶσ᾽ have 
given the commentators trouble. As we are dealing with a series 


1 [From the Classical Review, vol. ix (1895), pp. 200-202. ] 


30 Greek Authors 


of actions and events our examination of these words will, I con- 
ceive, proceed best in reverse order. We begin then with évoraoa. 

If we consider this word in connection with the context, exclusive 
of λέχος κριτὸν, and take it in its literal sense, it will mean that, when 
Zeus gave the victory to Heracles, Deianira, who had been sitting 
an anxious spectator of the conflict, took her stand at Heracles’s 
side. If we take the word thus literally, it looks to ἥμην in v. 24 and 
forms a parallel to τέλος ἔθηκε in v. 26, thus continuing the aorist in 
participial form. We can bring out its force more clearly if we 
paraphrase thus: τέλος δὲ θέντος Διὸς dywviov Ἡρακλεῖ ξυνέστην. Τί 
this be the meaning οἱ ξυστᾶσ᾽, we shall see in it. what Professor 
Gildersleeve might call a plastic touch. The whole fight is a rude 
one like a struggle of beasts (Achelous is a bull when ἐναργής and 
bull-headed at the best) for the possession of the female, who 
follows the victorious male. A support of this view may be seen 
at the conclusion of that chorus in which the fight is described (vv. 
497-530). There we read (vv. 523 sqq.): ἃ δ᾽ εὐῶπις ἁβρὰ | τηλαυγεῖ 
παρ᾽ ὄχθῳ | ἧστο, τὸν ὃν προσμένουσ᾽ ἀκοίταν. | (Probably corrupt verse.) 
| τὸ δ᾽ ἀμφινείκητον ὄμμα νύμφας | ἐλεινὸν ἀμμένει " | κἀπὸ ματρὸς ἄφαρ 
βέβακεν, | ὥστε (SO A:L reads ὥσπερ) πόρτις ἐρήμα. 

If now this interpretation of ξυστᾶσα be a fair one, λέχος is to be 
taken as nominative, not as accusative. (It has indeed been accepted 
as nominative by G. C. W. Schneider (1824), Linwood, Wakefield, 
Blaydes, Paley, Schneidewin-Nauck, Jebb. Hermann, however, un- 
derstood it as accusative, and so too Wunder and Campbell.) 

As for κριτὸν we should naturally say that, inasmuch as we have 
the contest decided by Ζεὺς ἀγώνιος and as the clause in which κριτὸν 
stands describes the result of that decision, κριτὸν should be taken 
in the simple sense of ‘adjudged,’ ‘decreed,—not ‘chosen’ as the 
scholiast’s ἔκκριτον would imply. Professor Campbell, although he 
takes λέχος in the sense of ‘marriage,’ translates κριτὸν as ‘adjudged 
to him’ (Heracles) and acutely annotates Ἡρακλεῖ thus: “Ἡρακλεῖ is 
primarily (a) dative after κριτὸν, and secondarily (Ὁ) dative after 
évoraca.” We return now to the narration. 

‘I have been nursing,’ says Deianira, ‘a continuous succession of 
fears (ἀεί τιν᾽ ἐκ φόβου φόβον τρέφω), anxious for him (for night brings 
[him] in and night thrusts [him] away with a fresh toil).’ The 
κείνου in κείνου προκηραίνουσα is emphatically placed and suggests a 


Sophocles 31 


contrast. The following clause νὺξ γὰρ εἰσάγει | καὶ νὺξ ἀπωθεῖ διαδεδεγ- 
μένη πόνον (vv. 29-30) can, it should seem, in view of the context, 
hardly be taken in any other way than as I have rendered it. For 
not only is κείνου the emphatic word in what immediately precedes, 
but the διαδεδεγμένη πόνον suggests at once a parallel with ἐκ φόβου 
φόβον, as who should say ἐκ πόνου πόνον παρέχουσα. For this interpre- 
tation we have such support as is afforded by the scholiast’s ἀντὶ 
νυκτὸς ἔρχεται Kal νυκτὸς ἐξορμᾶται ὡς [μὴ] διαδοχήν μοι τῶν πόνων γενέσθαι 
(the μὴ between ὡς and διαδοχήν spoils the sense and appears to be ἃ 
dittography of μοι after διαδοχήν). (So too in v. 825 we find 
ἀναδοχὰν πόνων of Heracles’s labours, though this has been questioned 
and emended to ἀναπνοὰν πόνων. Cf. also vv. 34-35.) It seems most 
natural to accept the repeated νὺξ as referring to one and the same 
night, to suppose that Heracles comes home late and goes off on a 
fresh quest before the dawn. In accepting this (to me, at least) 
most natural interpretation I follow Professor Campbell, who offers 
strong objections to the other renderings of which the one makes 
πόνον the object of both the verbs and the participle, interpreting it as 
the anxiety of Deianira (= φόβον), while the other makes an under- 
stood pronoun referring to Heracles the object of the verbs and 
takes πόνον, again of Deianira’s anxiety, as object of the participle. 
But, however we understand the clause vié—zévov, we find the great- 
est stumbling-block of this entire passage in vv. 31-37. 

The first words of this passage are now always read (according 
to L, A and other MSS.) κἀφύσαμεν δὴ παῖδας, but they were long read 
(according to B) κἄφυσα μὲν δὴ παῖδας. As there is nothing for the 
pev to refer to, the choice between the two readings is easy; but it 
has not been observed that the δὴ is perhaps as bad. ‘So’ (Camp- 
bell), ‘nun’ (Schneidewin-Nauck), ‘then’ (Jebb) do not somehow 
appeal to one. It seems quite obvious that the phrase looks back to 
κείνου προκηραίνουσα and that we have here in παῖδας the correlative 
to the emphatic κείνου. If such be the case, the sense should be: 
‘And I have borne children too.’ That would be expressed κἀφύσα- 
μεν δὲ παῖδας. Here we come upon the explanation of the varia- 
tion of reading in the MSS. KA®YCAMENAETIAIAAC was wrongly 
divided κἄφυσα μὲν δὲ παῖδας, then emended to κἄφυσα μὲν δὴ παῖδας, 
then still further emended to κἀφύσαμεν δὴ παῖδας. 

The remainder of v. 31, ods κεῖνός ποτε, we will leave for the 


oe Greek Authors 


moment, without determining the meaning of ποτε, in order to 
examine the comparison that follows. This comparison runs thus: 

γήτης ὅπως ἄρουραν ἔκτοπον λαβὼν 

σπείρων μόνον προσεῖδε κἀξαμῶν ἅπαξ 

τοιοῦτος αἰὼν εἰς δόμους τε κἀκ δόμων 

αἰεὶ τὸν ἄνδρ᾽ ἔπεμπε λατρεύοντά τῳ. 
If these four verses be taken by themselves and the modern punctua- 
tion disregarded the meaning is perfectly clear. It is this: ‘Asa 
husbandman that has taken a field at a distance sees it but once at 
seed time and (once again) at harvest (each year), that was the 
sort of life that continually (brought) my husband home and sent 
(him) from: home in the service of somebody or other.’ The com- 
parison is delicately made. Heracles is the yyrys, Deianira is the 
ἄρουρα. As the γήτης visits his field σπείρων, so Heracles visits 
Deianira; as the γήτης does not visit his field again till the time of 
reaping, so Heracles on his return finds a child born of Deianira. 
The aorist προσεῖδε can only be gnomic. Did it refer directly to 
Heracles, we should have an imperfect. We thus see that ots and 
κεῖνος have no construction. The thread of the thought broken by 
the ὅπως clause is resumed not by οὕτως κεῖνος but by the more 
general τοιοῦτος αἴων. But what is the meaning of wore? 

Alone of the commentators Tournier has seen that ποτε is the 
correlative of νῦν in v. 36 (viv δ᾽ ἡνίκ᾽ ἄθλων τῶνδ᾽ ὑπερτελὴς ἔφυ). 
‘rote,’ says he, ‘parait s’opposer ἃ νῦν δέ du vers 36. Mais l’ensemble 
de la phrase n’est guére satisfaisant.’ But the unsatisfactory char- 
acter of the context is due to the fact that Tournier, like the other 
commentators, construes ovs κεῖνός ποτε σπείρων μόνον προσεῖδε κἀξαμῶν 
ἅπαξ, making γήτης ὅπως ἄρουραν ἔκτοπον λαβὼν parenthetic. But 
with the comparison rightly understood and punctuated the context 
is quite satisfactory. ‘Whom he once (or, formerly), as a husband- 
man, etc., but now, etc.’ For the correlation of ποτὲ and viv δὲ we 
need only compare Phil. 96 sqq. ἐσθλοῦ πατρὸς παῖ, καὐτὸς ὧν νέος 
ποτὲ | γλῶσσαν μὲν ἀργὸν, χεῖρα δ᾽ εἶχον ἐργάτιν | νῦν δ᾽ εἰς ἔλεγχον 
ἐξιὼν ὁρῶ βροτοῖς | τὴν γλῶσσαν, οὐχὶ τἄργα, πάνθ᾽ ἡγουμένην. 

If all this is so Deianira has told us in effect that Heracles 
formerly (ore) came home about once every ten months, and we 
expect her to say that now (νῦν) he has been away considerably 
over that time. And that is precisely what she does say, but in her 





Sophocles 33 


own woman’s way—circumstantially, reverting to her fears and 
anxieties first. Thus (vv. 36-42): 

νῦν δ᾽, ἡνίκ᾽ ἄθλων τῶνδ᾽ ὑπερτελὴς ἔφυ, 

ἐνταῦθα δὴ (= νῦν δὴ) μάλιστα ταρβήσασ᾽ ἔχω - 

ἐξ οὗ γὰρ ἔκτα κεῖνος ᾿Ιφίτου βίαν, 

ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐν Τραχῖνι τῇδ᾽ ἀνάστατοι 

ξένῳ παρ᾽ ἀνδρὶ ναίομεν, κεῖνος δ᾽ ὅπου 

βέβηκεν οὐδεὶς οἷδε - πλὴν ἐμοὶ πικρὰς 

ὠδῖνας (= φόβους) αὐτοῦ προσβαλὼν ἀποίχεται. 
Then follows what we have so long expected (vv. 43-45): 

σχεδὸν δ᾽ ἐπίσταμαί τι πῆμ᾽ ἔχοντά νιν " 

χρόνον γὰρ οὐχὶ βαιὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη δέκα 

μῆνας πρὸς ἄλλοις πέντ᾽ ἀκήρυκτος μένει" 
Heracles has thus been away, to be quite prosaic, half as long agai 
as usual. 

But Deianira has not quite finished her speech. She has said 
(v. 43): ‘And I am pretty certain that he is suffering some mis- 
fortune,’ after which she gives in the yap clause (v. 44 sq) reason 
for her belief that it is ‘some misfortune’; then she adds (vv. 
46-48): ‘And it is some terrible misfortune: that was the import 
of the tablet that he left with me when he was taking leave. I often 
pray to the gods that I may prove to have received it without harm’ 
(κἄστιν τι δεινὸν πῆμα - τοιαύτην ἐμοὶ | δέλτον λιπὼν ἔστειχε, τὴν ἐγὼ θαμὰ | 
θεοῖς ἀρῶμαι πημονῆς ἄτερ λαβεῖν). But she has not ‘received it with- 
out harm’, and thereby hangs a tale—the drama of the Trachinians, 
the prologue to which would seem incomplete without the conclud- 
ing words of Deianira. 

I append verses 26-37 as I would read them. I may add that 
although the commentators have mismanaged the ὅπως clause, Dr. 
Plumptre in his translation has done much better; for he renders 
thus (the italics, etc., are mine) : 

‘Yea! (= δὴ) sons were born to us, 
And like a husbandman who tills the soil 
Of distant field, and sees the crop(!) but once, 
Sowing and reaping, so is he to them; 
Such course of life still sends him home to me, 
And far from home, in servile labour bound 
To one we know.’ 


34 Greek Authors 


τέλος δ᾽ ἔθηκε Leds ἀγώνιος καλῶς--- 
εἰ δὴ καλῶς - λέχος γὰρ Ἡρακλεῖ κριτὸν 
ξυστᾶσ᾽ ἀεί τιν᾽ ἐκ φόβου φόβον τρέφω 
κείνου προκηραίνουσα---νὺξ γὰρ εἰσάγει 
καὶ νὺξ ἀπωθεῖ διαδεδεγμένη πόνον---, 

3 ΄ Ἂς - a a sf 
κἀφύσαμεν δὲ παῖδας, ods κεῖνός ποτε--- 

΄ ο ΝΜ 3) ‘ 
γήτης ὅπως ἄρουραν ἔκτοπον λαβὼν 

, , a > A“ σ 

σπείρων μόνον προσεῖδε κἀξαμῶν ἅπαξ, 
τοιοῦτος αἰὼν ἐς δόμους τε κἀκ δόμων 

SEN Ν BA ὃ 2» , , 
αἰεὶ τὸν ἄνδρ᾽ ἔπεμπε λατρεύοντά τῳ’ 
νῦν δ᾽, ἡνίκ᾽ ἄθλων τῶνδ᾽ ὑπερτελὴς ἔφυ, 
ἐνταῦθα δὴ μάλιστα ταρβήσασ᾽ ἔχω. 


ADNOTATIONES AD SOPHOCLIS TRACHINIAS.? 
Vv. 1-3. 
Λόγος μὲν ἐστ᾽ ἀρχαῖος «ἐκ τινὸς» φανείς, 
ὡς οὐκ ἂν αἰῶν᾽ ἐκμάθοι βροτῶν πρὶν ἂν 
θάνῃ τις οὔτ᾽ εἰ χρηστὸς οὔτ᾽ εἴ τῳ κακός * 
‘Est sane verbum vetus a quodam prolatum, neminem facile morta- 
lium ante quam mortuus sit vitam suam cognitam posse habere 
bonamne an malam habuerit’. 

In graecis, quae latine quam verissime exprimere sum conatus, sunt 
quae diligentissime perpendamus oporteat. Ac primum quidem in 
primo ipso versiculo dubium non potest esse, quin illud ἔστ᾽ idem 
valeat atque ὑπάρχει. Deinde eodem in versu e Blaydesii coniectura 
pro tradito illo ἀνθρώπων reponendum esse censeo ἐκ τινὸς. Tralaticia 
scriptura quin ex interpretamento interlineari βροτῶν vocabulo super- 
scripto profluxerit nulla mihi est dubitatio. Hac de coniectura vel 
potius, ut mihi quidem videtur, emendatione alibi iam scripsi: v. 
Classical Review, vii. 1893, Ὁ. 449.2 Ad ἀνθρώποις autem quod attinet, 
quam scripturam pro ἀνθρώπων e grammatico quodam afferunt*, id 
nihil aliud equidem esse puto nisi coniecturam a nescio quo ad 
sententiam tolerabilem efficiendam introductam. Tertium ex eis 
quae hisce in versibus maxime sunt memorabilia illud est, quod pro 
ἐκμάθοι L’ ἐκμάθοις praebet, quam scripturam editorum plerique cupi- 
dius quam consideratius sunt amplexi. Nollem factum; nam illud 


‘TMS. notes. ] 

2 [The note referred to here is superseded by this article, and is therefore not in- 
cluded in this volume. ] 

8 [Vide Harvard Studies, 12.148.] 


Sophocles 35 


ἐκμάθοι, quod et A praebet et Boissonadius, quem honoris causa 
nomino, in sua editiuncula tuetur, non tantum sensum praebet opti- 
mum, verum etiam e versibus quarto quintoque verum esse apparet. 
An cum sic pergat poeta vel potius uxor personata: 
ἐγὼ δὲ τὸν ἐμὸν Kal πρὶν εἰς “Avdov μολεῖν 
ἔξοιδ᾽ ἔχουσα δυστυχῆ τε καὶ βαρύν, 
sic inquam cum se habeat contextus verborum atque sententiarum, 
intellegentis est et rem suam consulte gerentis editoris ἐκμάθοι 
spernere, ἐκμάθοις accipere atque defendere? Nonne istud erat dedita 
opera meridiana in luce caecutire? Mihi quidem adeo plana res est 
atque aperta, vix ut opus videatur vel uno verbo amplius addito. 
Addo tamen illud, νεῦρα quae sunt οὔτ᾽ εἰ χρηστὸς οὔτ᾽ εἴ τῳ κακός 
nihil aliud valere nisi οὔτ᾽ εἰ χρηστὸν οὔτ᾽ εἰ κακὸν ἔσχεν, ad quae 
ex contrario optime respondet ἔξοιδ᾽ ἔχουσα δυστυχῆ τε καὶ βαρύν. 
Ac ne cui forte quidquam omisisse videar, animadverto τῳ pro- 
nomine indefinito ita praecedens illud τὶς resumi quasi αὐτῷ 
personale scriptum sit. Cui loquendi rationi haud ita absimilis est 
ei quam Eur. Hipp. 46 offendimus, ubi praegresso dpaiow ἃς ὃ 
πόντιος | ἄναξ Ἰϊοσειδῶν Gracey Θησεῖ γέρας legimus μηδὲν μάταιον (1. 
ματαίους) ἐς τρὶς εὔξασθαι θεῷ, quo loco, nisi obstaret metrica 
ratio, pro θεᾷ haberemus airg. Ad summam me credere profiteor 
Soloneum illud apud Herodotum, Sophoclis delicias, obvium leviter 
specie, re vera haud ita leviter immutatum suum in usum a poeta 
esse conversum. 
Vv. 9-14. 
μνηστὴρ yap ἣν μοι ποταμός---᾿ Αχελῷον λέγω--- 
ὅς μ᾽ ἐν τρισὶν μορφαῖσιν ἐξήτει πατρὸς 
φοιτῶν ἐναργής, ταῦρος, ἄλλοτ᾽ αἰόλος 
δράκων ἑλικτός, ἄλλοτ᾽ ἀνδρείῳ κύτει 
βούπρῳρος ἐκ δὲ δασκίου γενειάδος 
κρουνοὶ διερραίνοντο κρηναίου ποτοῦ. 
Huius loci cum veram scripturam ex Strabone reduxerint editores, 
__ -veram interpunctionem non perspexerunt. Ita vero positis distinc- 
: tionibus ut ego suadeo hunc in modum est intellegenda sententia 
relativa: ὅς μ᾽ ἐξήτει πατρὸς ἐν τρισὶν μορφαῖσιν φοιτῶν ἐναργής (i. 6. 
ἐπιφαινόμενος), «ἄλλοτε"» ταῦρος, ἄλλοτ᾽ αἰόλος δράκων ἑλικτός, ἄλλοτ᾽ 
ἀνδρείῳ κύτει βούπρῳρος ἐκ δασκίου γενειάδος κρουνοὺς διαρραίνων κρηναίου ποτοῦ. 
1De huius loci vera interpunctione εἰ interpretatione vide sis quae scripsi 
Mnemos. 30. (1902), p. 136. [See below under Euripides. ] 





36 Greek Authors 


V 17: 
πρὶν τοῦδε κοίτης ἐμπελασθῆναί ποτε" 

Versum e Wunderi coniectura sic sanatum haud facile equidem 
permittam ut eiciatur, immo vero strenue eam defendam, qui per- 
suasum habeam ne unum quidem versum hoc ex prologo secluden- 
dum esse, cuius prologi versuum numerus duodequinquagenarius 
ex ea ratione numerali videtur pendere quam in Medeae prologo 
observaverat Euripides: v. Transactions of the American Philolog- 
ical Association, vol. xxxili, 1902, pp. 16 sq. 

V. 27 sq. Suspicor rescribendum esse λάχος yap Ἡρακλεῖ κριτὸν | 
ξυστᾶς", 1. €. λάχος yap κριτὸν Ἡρακλεῖ Evorao’. 

Vv. 29-31. 

ἀεί tiv’ ἐκ φόβου φόβον τρέφω, 

κείνου προκηραίνουσα---νὺξ γὰρ εἰσάγει 

καὶ νὺξ ἀπωθεῖ διαδεδεγμένον πόνου----, 

κἀφύσαμεν δὲ παῖδας κτέ. 
In versu 31 necessarium esse videtur pro tradito διαδεδεγμένη πόνον 
Billerbeckii διαδεδεγμένον πόνους. Verum non de hac potissimum correc- 
tione nunc agere volo, sed de ratione quae intercedit inter κείνου 
προκηραίνουσα et κἀφύσαμεν δὲ παῖδας xré. Nam qui recte haec verba 
leget vel potius pronuntiabit, is necesse animadvertat κείνου et παῖδας 
inter sese opponi. Ne te morer, lector benevole, huc.rem deducam. 
Duplex est Deianirae timor cum pro Hercule tum pro liberis suis re- 
formidantis. Ad liberos quod attinet, satis obscure timorem suum de- 
clarat; nam illud ταρβήσασ᾽ ἔχω quod 37 demum versu occurrit aeque 
ad Herculem absentem atque ad liberos sine custode relictos spectat. 
Cetera quae de toto hoc loco ab editoribus pessime intellecto et sensi 
et adhuc sentio exposui in Classical Review ix, 1895, pp. 200-202.” 
Illud tantum habeo quod nunc addam, ἐφύσαμεν verbum de sola 
Deianira esse accipiendum tamquam eadem significatione praeditum 
atque ἔτεκον: cf. Eur. Med. 1063, quem versum fieri potest ut hic 
imitatus sit Sophocles. 

In v. 44 sq., si vera sunt quae de denarii hoc loco mensium numeri 
significatione disputavi in Classical Review (loc. cit.), exspectandum 
erat ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη δέκα | μησὶν πρὸς ἄλλους πέντ᾽ ἀκήρυκτος μένει. Satis tamen 
dubitanter hanc suspicionem profero. 


1 [See above, pp. 13 sq-] 
2 [See above. p. 29.] 


Sophocles 37 


CAAEYEIN.* 


In Soph. O. T. 694 sqq. we read (following at the end the first 

hand of L): 
ὅς τ᾽ ἐμὰν γᾶν φίλαν ἐν πόνοισιν 
ἁλύουσαν κατ᾽ ὀρθὸν οὔρισας, 
τανῦν τ᾽ εὔπομπος εἰ δύναι γενοῦ. 

Dobree wrote σαλεύουσαν for ἀλυουσαν. This cannot fail to be the 
original,—‘especially’ (to quote Blaydes’s words) ‘as the rest of the 
imagery in this passage is borrowed from the sea (ovpucas, εὔπομπος) .᾽ 
We naturally compare O. T. 22—24 and Ant. 162 sqq. It is scarcely 
worth while to quote Schol. L σαλεύει] ἧ μεταφορὰ ἀπὸ τῶν χειμαζομένων 
νεῶν, and πολλῷ σάλῳ] τροπικῶς ὡς ἐπὶ νεώς: But Professor Jebb’s note 
on Ο. 7. 695 is astonishing: “ ἀλύουσαν, of one maddened by suffering, 
Ph. 1194 ἀλύοντα χειμερίῳ Avra. The conjecture σαλεύουσαν would be 
correct but tame.’ Leaving the latter of these sentences to fall by 
its own weight, let us direct our attention to the parallel cited in the 
former. This is in full (P77. 1193—5) : 

οὔτοι νεμεσητόν, 

ἀλύοντα χειμερίῳ 

λύπᾳ καὶ παρὰ νοῦν θροεῖν. 
Here χειμερίῳ shows plainly that the metaphor is from the sea (‘ ἀπὸ 
τῶν χειμαζομένων νεῶν ᾽) and directs us to read not ἀλύοντα but σαλεύοντα. 
Indeed the Schol. L ad loc. points to this: χειμερίῳ | Avra ταραχώδε 
πάθει, μεταφορικῶς" οὐκ ἔστι, φησί, μεμπτὸν τῷ δυστυχοῦντι καὶ παραφθέγγεσθαι, 
—not παραφρονοῦντι καὶ παραφθέγγεσθαι, which would be the translation 
of the traditional text and would bring out fully its insipidity. On 
Phil. 1194 Professor Jebb cites PAi/. 174, where the context (173-5) 
15: 

νοσεῖ μὲν νόσον ἀγρίαν 

ἀλύει δ᾽ ἐπὶ παντί τῳ 

χρείας ἱσταμένῳ. 
This is not a parallel: ἀλύει is right, as is shown by the construction 
of ἐπί cum dat. after it, and is rightly explained by the translation of 
Schol. 1, ἀλύει] ἀλγεῖ, ἀπορεῖ. With σαλεύειν we expect a locative- 
instrumental construction, ‘in, with, by’: the metaphor is vigorous, 
and the surrounding, agitating element is not lost sight of. We may 


1 [From the Classical Review, vol. VII (1893), p. 248]. 


38 Greek Authors 


compare in conclusion Plat. Legg. 923 B καὶ οὕτω τούτων ἐχόντων, οὐκ, 

ἐάν τις ὑμᾶς θωπείαις ὑποδραμὼν ἐν νόσοις ἢ γήρᾳ σαλεύοντας, 
ε 

κτέ. 


NOTES ON SOPHOCLES’S OEDIPUS TYRANNUS? 

Vv. 2-5. 

τίνας ποθ᾽ ἕδρας τάσδε μοι θοάζετε 
ἱκτηρίοις κλάδοισιν ἐξεστεμμένοι * 
πόλις δ᾽ ὁμοῦ μὲν θυμιαμάτων γέμει, 
ὁμοῦ δὲ παιάνων τε καὶ στεναγμάτων ; 

‘Why in the world, pray, are you sitting thus with suppliants’ 
branches, while (whereas) the city is filled with incense, is filled 
with paeans and groans?’ πόλις δὲ implies ὑμεῖς μὲν in the first 
member of the period. That the contrast exists is reasonably 
certain. But the actions described in the two members are not 
plainly contrasted, as the sentence now stands. The sitting of a 
delegation with suppliants’ boughs somewhere is not in marked 
contrast with burning incense or singing paeans somewhere. It is 
the designation of the person to whom the supplication is addressed 
on the one hand, the incense-burning and paean-singing on the other, 
that makes a contrast between the actions. One part of the citi- 
zens—a delegation—supplicate the king; the city -at large suppli- 
cates the gods. ‘Why should a few supplicate the king, while most 
look to the gods for aid?’ is roughly the question in Oedipus’s mind. 
If πόλις δ᾽ is contrasted by implication (as without doubt it is) with 
«ὑμεῖς μὲν», and if what has just been said about a second contrast 
in the sentence is true, then, inasmuch as there is no word referring 
directly to the gods, but there is one referring directly to the king 
(μοι), we have, what appears very often elsewhere, a double contrast 
expressed half by half. The scheme of such contrast in the present 
passage will be thus: 

«ὑμεῖς μὲν.» ---μοι 

πόλις δὲ---- «τοῖς Geots>. 
But if this double contrast exists and one part of it is an oblique 
case of a personal pronoun, such oblique case of a personal pronoun 
should have the antidiastolic form, not the enclitic. Therefore, 
τάσδε μοι should give place to τάσδ᾽ ἐμοὶ. So Brunck read. So the 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIII (1899), pp. 339-342.]. 


Sophocles 39 


Σχόλια Nedrepa, thus: tives εἰσὶν αἱ καθέδραι αὗται, ἃς κάθησθε χάριν 
ἐμοῦ. And again: ἐμοὶ δὲ εἰκότως εἴρηκεν" δι’ αὐτὸν γὰρ ἐκάθηντο. 
Bothe should not have objected .to Brunck’s text (addenda 
et emendanda to Leipsic edition of 1806): ‘leg. τάσδε μοι: nam 
ὀρθοτονουμένῳ locus non est. Sic saepius novavit Brunckius, a me 
non ubique, ut par esset, retusus, quod semel moneo.’ The priest 
answers Oedipus’s implication in vs. 31 sqq. Those words are 
pointless and have nothing to rest on (the priest replies to Oedipus 
in chiastic order), unless we read τάσδ᾽ éuot. (1 shall take up the 
priest’s words presently from another point of view.) ἃ in dy# has 
reference to the contrast, the inconsistency, which Oedipus has just 
noted, of which he now demands the reason in person. Of course, 
the interrogation extends, as I have indicated by my pointing, 
through στεναγμάτων. 

It may be remarked here that modern scholars do not always 
appreciate the fact that from the ancient Greek point of view both 
terms of a contrast do not need always to be expressed. Thus, for 
example, Nauck wrote (Mél. iv. p. 216) of Eur. Hel. 1047 sq. thus: 
“Das Schiff, das wir hatten, hat das Meer.’”’ Wollte Euripides in 
dieser Weise mit dem Verbum ἔχειν spielen, so konnte er nur sagen 
ἣν γὰρ ἡμεῖς πρόσθεν εἴχομεν, τὰ νῦν ἔχει ἣ θάλασσα. Der tiberlieferte 
Ausdruck lehrt dass nicht der Dichter sondern ein Abschreiberver- 
sehen verantwortlich zu machen ist fiir das frostige Wortspiel. Man 
erwartet 7 yap ἤλθομεν θάλασσ᾽ ἔχει. But in Eur. Alc. 339 sq. we find 
λόγῳ yap ἦσαν οὐκ ἔργῳ φιλοι | od δ᾽ (as if a οὗτοι μὲν Or οὗτοι had gone 
before) ἀντιδοῦσα τῆς ἐμῆς τὰ φίλτατα | ψυχῆς ἔσωσας. Still more strik- 
ing is Hom. Τ' 164 οὔ τί μοι αἰτίη ἐσσί, θεοί νύ μοι αἴτιοί εἰσιν, Where no 
σὺ anticipates θεοί. 

As I have just spoken of a matter of punctuation, | may add here 
that in vs. 11 στέρξαντες should be followed by ,. The question is not 
direct; therefore, the ; is not required. Besides this, the pointing 
with; obscures the relation of ὡς θέλοντος ἂν xré. (VS. 11) to φράζ᾽ 
(vs. 9). 

It seems to me, as to others, reasonable to suppose that στέρξαντες 
Was once οὐ στέρξαντες. 1 would explain the present state of our 
text thus: The οὐ before στέρξαντες was dropped out by some one in 
copying; then an attempt was made to restore it (by putting it in 
the margin first?) ; this succeeded so far that od did indeed get back 


40 Greek Authors 


into the text but in the wrong synizesis—with μὴ in vs. 13, where it 
was not wanted, instead of with 7 in vs. 11, where it was wanted. 

Vs. 15-21. The μὲν after ὁρᾷς is, of course, contrasted with the δὲ 
in τὸ δ᾽ ἄλλο φῦλον (vs. 19). The structure of this whole passage may 
be clearly indicated thus: 


ε ἰοὺ Ν ε a“ τε / ε 
ὁρᾷς μὲν ἡμᾶς [ἡλίκοι κτέ, 
A... 





“a μὲν οὐδέπω KTé\ fot δὲ σὺν κτέ. 
ἱερεὺς ἐγὼ μὲν oe δ᾽ ηθέων λεκτοί 
τὸ δ᾽ ἄλλο φῦλον. 

The emphasis on ἡλίκοι makes φῦλον mean primarily ‘those of other 
age than we’ (the contrast of sex is not so distinctly—if at all— 
present to the mind). We must read οἵδε δ᾽ ἠθέων in vs. 18; also ἱερεὺς 
ἐγὼ μὲν at the beginning of the same verse. οἵδε δ᾽ ἠθέων is the reading 
of Pal. 40 (see Professor Campbell’s edition; cf. also Emil Miiller, 
Beitrage zur Erklirung u. Kritik des Kénigs Odipus des Sophokles, 
I. und II., Leipsic, 1884, p. 5). 

In the priest’s answer to Oedipus the words ἀλλ᾽, ὦ κρατύνων κτέ. 
answer to ἀλλ᾽, ὦ γεραιέ, xré.; the word πόλις in vs. 22 intro- 
duces the reply to πόλις δ᾽ xré (vs. 4 Sq.) ; and στεναγμοῖς καὶ γόοις 
in vs. 30 refers us back to vs. 5. What follows vs. 30 will, therefore, 
by a natural process of chiastic elimination, answer to vss. 2-3. This 
brings us to the conclusion already drawn from the point of view 
of the earlier verses—that vss. 31-32 have reference to vss. 2-3 and 
that ἐμοὶ must be read in vs. 2. From vs. 142 M. Schmidt (Philo- 
logus 18, 229) inferred that in vs. 16 Sophocles had written not 
βωμοῖσι τοῖς σοῖς but βάθροισι τοῖς σοῖς. In vss. 31-34 the priest protests 
that he and the suppliants do not approach Oedipus as a god. Does 4 
not this, the turning point of the priest’s answer, taken in connection 
with what has already been said about the relation of the speeches 
of Oedipus and the priest, make strongly against βωμοῖσι and for Ba- : 
θροισι ? . 

I may add here that in vs. 31 Mr Blaydes’s ἴσον νέμων σ᾽ ἐγὼ seems 
to me very Lerman 

In v. 35 ὅς τ᾽, which is supported, so far at least as MS. testimony 
is concerned, by the scholiast’s ὥστε, is certainly right, as Wunder 
maintained. & re συμφοραῖς βίου and ἔν τε δαιμόνων συναλλαγαῖς are re- 

Ἂς sumed i in chiastic order. νῦν (v. 40) is contrasted with the notion of 








Sophocles 41 


pastness in μολὼν---:ὔτ᾽ ἔμολες. μολὼν 15, therefore, not to be construed 
With ἄστυ Καδμεῖον. But if ἄστυ Καδμεῖον is to be construed with 
ἐξέλυσας, Professor von Herwerden’s σκληρᾶς ἀοιδοῦ, δασμὸν 7 παρείχομεν 
in v. 36 seems fairly inevitable. 

Lest I may not have been explicit enough about the chiasmus 
mentioned above and its bearing on ὅς τ᾽, I add a word here. 
συμφοραῖς βίου is commonly misinterpreted. συμφοραῖς has its normal 
sinister sense, and the phrase here=‘misfortunes, mischances, of 
life,’ with special reference to the plague, which, though a divine 
visitation, is here regarded especially from the human point of view ; 
δαιμόνων συναλλαγαῖς (the συν- is supported, as against éw-, by the 
parallelism with συμφοραῖς) means ‘dealings with higher (supernatural) 
beings,’ with reference to the Sphinx. πρῶτον ἐν δαιμόνων συναλλαγαῖς 
is expanded in the form of a relative clause in vv. 35-39; while vv. 
40-45 look back to πρῶτον ἐν συμφοραῖς βίου. 

Chiasmus is a prominent feature of this whole passage. We have 
a striking little instance of it in v. 42 sq., where του θεῶν is followed 
by avdpss—rov. The reading που spoils this. 

Vv. 44-45. ‘For it is especially to experienced men that I see 
even misfortunes <?> of counsels.’ What we want where ζώσας 
stands is a substantive that shall be connected as predicate with 
ξυμφορὰς and shall have τῶν βουλευμάτων depend upon it. The best 
suggestion that has been made here (to my knowledge) is Mekler’s 
ῥίζας. (Musgrave, if I am right in thinking some MS. notes on 
Sophocles in my possession to be his, felt the difficulty in the same 
way ; but his conjectures were less satisfactory. I may have more 
to say of this at another time.) ῥίζας with superscribed οὔσας (the 
latter merely to indicate the construction) might have got botched 
into ζώσας. Atall events ῥίζας indicates very well what is wanted 
here. ζώσας is pretty certainly wrong. ‘For to the experienced (as 
you are) necessity is especially the mother of invention’ is a senti- 
ment that fits in here very fairly well indeed. 

In vs. 47 I would read ds σε viv μὲν xré. There is no emphasis of 
contrast on the oe—no special emphasis at all, in fact: therefore, 
there is no reason why we should accent the word. νῦν μὲν demands 
a contrasted term in thé 8é-clause. This is to be found in ὕστερον, 
which does not belong to πεσόντες. πεσόντες needs no such adjunct. 
στάντες τ᾽ ἐς ὀρθὸν καὶ πεσόντες is contrasted (chiastically) with ἀσφαλείᾳ 
(ΞΞἀσφαλῶς, ὥστε μὴ πεσεῖν) ἀνόρθωσον in ν. 51. 


42 Greek Authors 


In v. 48 Pal. 40 is again right. προμηθείας (a mere carelessness of 
spelling for προμηθίας) is sense; προθυμίας hardly. 

In v. 55 I propose to read ξὺν ἀνδράσιν κάλλιον ἢ κενῆς βροτῶν. 

In v. 58 should we not construe the final word of the verse, μοι, 
with προσήλθεθ᾽ at the beginning of v. 59, rather than with γνωτὰ κοὐκ 
ἄγνωτα in v. 58? 

If vv. 80-1 are right as they stand, should we not construe thus : 
εἰ yap ἐν τύχῃ γέ τῳ σωτῆρι Bain <ottw> λαμπρός, ὥσπερ ὄμματι (‘to the 
eye’) «λαμπρὸς Baiva>? This=otrw λαμπρῶς (--εφανερῶς) σωτήριος 
ἔλθοι, ὥσπερ λαμπρὸς (---φανερὸς) προσέρχεται. Oedipus knows nothing 
about any bright expression on Creon’s face. He has not even seen 
him yet—only heard that he is approaching. Nor is the news that 
Creon brings of a kind to put a smile on a man’s face. Nor does the 
priest in his next words say anything about bright looks: he judges 
of the character of Creon’s news merely from his chaplet (vv. 82-83). 

In v. 99 I cannot but think that the reading of the MSS. τίς 6, 
τρόπος τῆς ξυμφορᾶς ; is adequately defended by Aristoph. Av. 94 ris 
ἡ πτέρωσις ; τίς ὃ τρόπος τῆς τριλοφίας ; In the reply of Creon (v. 100 
Sq.) ποίῳ καθαρμῷ; is answered first; ὡς τάδ᾽ (Hermann’s certain and 
admirable correction of τόδ᾽ αἷμα χειμάζον πόλιν answers τίς 6 τρόπος τῆς 
ξυμφορᾶς ; 

In ν. 116 sq. have we really what Sophocles wrote? Should we 
not rather read thus: 

οὐδ᾽ ἄγγελός τις ὧδε συμπράκτωρ ὁδοῦ 
κατῆλθ'᾽, ὅτου τις ἐκμαθὼν ἐχρήσατ᾽ ἄν ; 
to be construed: οὐδέ τις συμπράκτωρ 580d ἄγγελος ὧδε κατῆλθε, κτέ. ὃ 
᾿θνήσκουσι γάρ (sc. οἱ συμπράκτορες ὁδοῦ πάντες) in v. 118 looks as if 
συμπράκτωρ in v. 116 might have been the subject of the whole sen- 
tence.” 

In v. 118 φόβῳ is to be construed, I think, with οὐδὲν εἶχ᾽ εἰδὼς: 
φράσαι in v. 119. The participle φυγὼν is then=ére (postquam) 
ἔφυγεν. For the emphasis on the participle thus placed cf. hei” I 
have said of μολὼν in v. 35. 

In v. 122 sq. I venture to think that Sophocles may have written 
οὐ μιᾶς (NOt μιᾷ) ῥώμῃ κτανεῖν νιν, ἀλλὰ σὺν πλήθει χερῶν." 

It may be questioned whether vv. 141-146 are always (or generally) 

1 [See below, p. 46.] 


* [These emendations had already been made independently, ὧδε by A. Weidner, 
and μιᾶς by Sehrwald, as noted by Prof. Earle in his edition ad /oc.] 


Sophocles 43 


rightly understood. ὡς πᾶν ἐμοῦ δράσοντος (cf. v. 10 sq.) belongs in 
thought to ἵστασθε. The suppliants are to go away now in the belief 
that Oedipus will do all that lies in his power for the relief of his 
people. The concluding words of Oedipus’s speech are the promise 
referred to by the priest in the words (v. 147 sq.) τῶνδε χάριν ὧν ὅδ᾽ 
ἐξαγγέλλεται (--- ὑπισχνεῖται : I fail to see why commentators drag in 
‘of his own accord’ in their interpretations). ‘For we (2.6. I) will 
succeed—please God—or fall in the attempt’ is what Oedipus means 
by his words. The words σὺν τῷ θεᾷ need not refer to Apollo—in 
fact, they probably do not. At all events φανούμεθα here has the 
proper force of the future: it is an expression of intention. 

Are v. 421 sq. perhaps to be written: 

ὅταν καταίσθῃ γ᾽ ὃν ὑμέναιον ἐν δόμοις 
ἄνορμον εἰσέπλευσας εὐπλοίας τυχών ? 

It is interesting to observe that G. Wolff’s conjecture αὖ for οὐ in 
v. 430 is supported by the newly-discovered Oxyrhynchus fragment, 
in which αὖ stands in the text with: ov: written above by the 
second hand. The balance of opinion ought now, it seems to me, to 
turn in favor of αὖ, as against the feebler οὐ. 

In v. 1369 sq., the MSS. make Oedipus say to the Coryphaeus: 

ὡς μὲν τάδ᾽ οὐχ ὧδ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἄριστ᾽ εἰργασμένα, 
μή μ᾽ ἐκδίδασκε, μηδὲ συμβούλευ᾽ ἔτι. 
But the Coryphaeus had said (v. 1367): 


οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως σε φῶ βεβουλεῦσθαι καλῶς. 


It thus seems that Sophocles wrote in v. 1369 not εἰργασμένα but 
ἐγνωσμένα. It may be noted that ἐγνωσμένα and εἰργασμένα are Con- 
fused in Eur. Wed. 779—at least jthe reading of the MSS. varies 
between ἐγνωσμένα and <ipyacueva. In the present passage the corrup- 
tion of ἐγνωσμένα to εἰργασμένα may be due—wholly or in part—to the 
occurrence of εἰργασμένα at the end of v. 1374. 


SOPHOCLE, OEDIPE-ROI v. to-11.1 


Jai lu avec beaucoup d'intérét l’article que M. L. Parmentier a 
consacré dans cette Revue (xxvi, 349-53) aux vers 10-11 de l’Oedipe- 
Roi de Sophocle, mais je regrette de n’étre pas d’accord sur un plus 


1[From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XX VII (1903), pp. 151 sq-] 


44 Greek Authors 


grand nombre de points avec le savant auteur d’ Euripide et Anaxa- 
gore. Je ne suis en effet de son avis que sur deux points: il a trés 
justement marqué les raisons de l’étonnement d’Oedipe’ et noté, a 
la fin de son article,? le souci chez le poéte de présenter Oedipe sous 
son jour le plus favorable. Encore dois-je ajouter que M. Par- 
mentier ne me semble pas avoir découvert tout ce qu'il y a d’étonnant 
dans la supplication addressée a Oedipe. 1] dit que le wo au vers 2 
‘a l’accent,’ chose qui ne me semble pas possible si on retient la 
forme enclitique du pronom. II] a raison quand il demande ici un 
pronom emphatique, mais il faut que nous écrivions avec Brunck 
τάσδ᾽ ἐμοὶ θοάζετε, ce que j’ai fait et dans la Classical Review, xiii 
(1899), 339,° et dans ma petite edition de l’Oedipe-Roi (New York, 
American Book Company, 1901). M. Parmentier cite M. Ewald 
Bruhn, comme le dernier editeur de l’Oedipe-Roi. Mon edition ne 
semble donc pas lui étre connue et il m’excusera si j’en fais souvent 
mention dans ce qui suit. Je passe maintenant aux points ot je ne 
suis plus d’accord avec M. Parmentier. 

Il commence son article en disant que ‘le peuple est prosterné 
en suppliant devant le palais.’ C’est, au contraire, non pas le peuple, 
mais une délégation spéciale se composant de quelques jeunes gens 
(Moritz Schmidt a pensé, comme moi, qu’ils étaient au nombre de 
quatorze: vois mon édition p. 137) sous la direction d’un vieux 
prétre. M. Parmentier a négligé, comme la plupart des éditeurs du 
texte, le contraste entre la cité (πόλις, v. 4) et cette délégation, con- 
traste que je juge trés important et que j’ai taché de mettre en 
lumiére dans la Classical Review (1. c.) et dans mon édition ad loc. 
C’est justement la singularité de l’attitude de cette délégation en 
opposition a l’attitude de la plupart des citoyens—le fait qu’en méme 
temps que le reste de la cité se prosterne devant les dieux ce petit 
groupe de suppliants s’adresse au roi comme s'il était un dieu—qui 
frappe l’attention d’Oedipe et semble le remplir d’étonnement. C’est 
seulement aux jeunes gens qu’il adresse les mots Ὦ τέκνα. 1] ne 
s’'adresse 81 prétre que comme a un interpréte qui doit porter la 

-parole (ἐπεὶ πρέπων ἔφυς | πρὸ τῶνδε φωνεῖν, v. Q sq.) ; et c'est parce que 
le prétre ne fait sa réponse au roi qu’en qualité d’interpréte qu’ 


ΤΡ, 349. 
*P. 353. 
8 [See p. 38.] 


ΡΥ 


Sophocles 45 


Oedipe s’adresse directement aux jeunes gens au vers 58 ( Ὦ παῖδες 
οἰκτροί). Si nous regardons les mots d’Oedipe a ce point de vue 
son soi-disant sentiment paternel envers les citoyens de Thébes 
s’évanouit—au moins en cet endroit. Malheureusement c’est sur les 
preuves de ce sentiment, que M. Parmentier croit trouver ici dans les 
paroles d’Oedipe, que se fonde en grande partie son interprétation 
du mot orépgavres au vers 11. Je n’ai rien a reprendre a ce qu'il dit 
de la signification de στέργειν en général. Quant a l’endroit cité de 
l’Oedipe a Colone, je pense que méme M. Parmentier ne le trouverait 
pas d’une si grande importance, s’il efit mieux saisi le sens des mots 
d’Oedipe dans Il’Oedipe-Roi. J’en viens donc a mon tour ἃ ces trois 
mots du vers 11: δείσαντες ἢ στέρξαντες. 

M. Parmentier n’a pas discuté la transposition que l’on a depuis 
longtemps proposé de I’ οὐ, qui se trouve trés mal placé au vers 13, 
au vers 11 entre ἢ et orépfavres. Τ᾽ αἱ taché d’expliquer aux endroits 
déja cités la raison de cette transposition, a laquelle je tiens toujours. 
Je remarque ici en passant que M. Parmentier met un point d’inter- 
rogation aprés πᾶν au lieu d’aprés orépfavres. I] dit que ‘les editeurs 
mettent le point d’interrogation aprés orépéavres.? Dans mon édition 
jai retranché absolument le point d’interrogation. Je ne m’explique 
pas comment les éditeurs se sont persuadés que l’interrogation 
indirecte dépendant de φράζ᾽ doive étre considérée comme une inter- 
rogation directe. 

En rejetant l’explication qu’offre M. Parmentier de δείσαντες ἢ 
στέρξαντες et en maintenant la transposition de la négation: δείσαντες ἢ 
ov στέρξαντες, j’ajoute ἃ ce que j’ai écrit dans mon édition ce fait 
important, que c’est précisément en od orépgavres que les suppliants 
se trouvent devant le roi. Les vers 47-57, a la fin du discours du 
prétre au nom de la délégation, contiennent méme trois fois des 
exhortations, sinon des menaces couvertes. Le prétre, avec respect 
et finesse, mais aussi avec assez de clarté, signifie que le peuple s’im- 
patientera contre le roi si ce dernier ne trouve pas des moyens de lui 
en aide. Voila une chose bien importante, j’ose penser, pour I’inter- 
prétation de ce drame. 

J’ajoute que M. Parmentier ne me semble pas bien comprendre 
les mots ὡς θέλοντος ἂν. Il ne faut, ἃ mon idée, que se rappeler la forme 
de l’oratio recta, θέλοιμι ἂν, qui veut dire ‘je voudrais bien,’ velim. 


46 Greek Authors 


SOPHOCLES, OEDIPUS TYRANNUS 54 δα. 


ὡς εἴπερ ἄρξεις τῆσδε γῆς, ὥσπερ κρατεῖς, 
ξὺν ἀνδράσιν κάλλιον ἢ κενῆς κρατεῖν. 

Apart from Blaydes’s ἧσπερ for ὥσπερ, a conjecture that a careful 
reading of the passage with proper regard to the contrast between 
intention of future action (dp£es—rod λοιποῦ ἄρξεις) and present action 
(κρατεῖς--οτὰ νῦν κρατεῖς) seems certainly to reject, editors have been 
content to let these verses stand in the form presented above. But 
I cannot help feeling that Sophocles did not write them quite so. 
For in v. 55 we should expect either ἄρχειν instead of κρατεῖν if the 
notion of ruling is to be expressed a third time, or else that the 
notion of ruling should be understood, i. e., that there should be no 
infinitive at all. Furthermore the position of κρατεῖν is suspicious, 
since it is not required, because of the similar form κρατεῖς just above 
it. In A (see Campbell’s adnot. crit. ad loc.) we find κρατεῖς instead 
of κρατεῖν. May this not be but one step further in a process of cor- 
ruption that has assimilated a form somewhat similar to κρατεῖς into 
the form κρατεῖν and then, finally, assimilated κρατεῖν entirely to 
κρατεῖς ἡ I would suggest βροτῶν, the substitution of which for 
κρατεῖν at once relieves an awkward redundancy and gives a neat 
chiastic arrangement in v. 55.” 


1[MS. note.—In his edition Professor Earle printed βροτῶν without comment. 
See p. 42.] 

? [Prof. Earle offered a possible defence of κρατεῖν in Proceedings of the American 
Philological Association 32 (1901), p. xxviiii—In Soph. O. 7. 54 sq., the two di- 
visions into protasis and apodosis of the sentence εἴπερ---κρατεῖν were discussed, that 
which makes the apodosis begin with ξὺν ἀνδράσιν (the prevailing division in modern 
commentaries) and that which makes the apodosis begin with κάλλιον, For the 
latter division Wunder seems to be primarily responsible. In favor of this latter 
division, it was urged that it brings together ὥσπερ κρατεῖς and ξὺν ἀνδράσιν, which 
belong together ; against it was urged that, like the other division, it makes κρατεῖν 
resume the notion of ἄρξεις when the notion has already been once resumed by 
κρατεῖς. It was suggested that the right division is after γῆς, and that we should 
point and interpret thus : 


ὡς εἴπερ ἄρξεις τῆσδε γῆς, ὥσπερ Kpareis— 
ξὺν ἀνδράσιν---κάλλιον ἢ κενῆς κρατεῖν. 
‘For if you really mean to remain lord of this land, the way you do rule it—with 


men—is better than to rule it empty.” With this division of the sentence κρατεῖν at 
the end of v. 55 is perfectly natural. ] 


Sophocles 47 
NOTE ON SOPHOCLES’S OEDIPUS COLONEUS 1036.1 


οὐδὲν σὺ μεμπτὸν ἐνθάδ᾽ ὧν ἐρεῖς ἐμοί Tyrrellius recte, quam tamen 
lectionem non recte interpretatur: dicit enim constructionem esse 
οὐδὲν ὧν σὺ ἐρεῖς, quod aperte falsum est. Auditur ante illud ἐρεῖς 
alterum ἐρεῖς ut hunc in modum intellegatur locus: οὐδὲν od μεμπτὸν 
ἐμοὶ ἐρεῖς, ἐνθάδ᾽ ὧν (pro ὧν ἐνθάδ᾽) ἐρεῖς. Cf. O.C. 1580 ubi ante λέξας 
auditur alterum λέξας quod cum ξυντομωτάτως et τύχοιμι Coniungatur. 
Cf. Xen. expedit. Cyr. 3, 4, 13, οὕς τε αὐτὸς ἱππέας ἦλθεν ἔχων. 


NOTE ON SOPHOCLES, ANTIGONE 117-120.? 


Ν , ¢ Ν , td > Ν 4 
στὰς δ᾽ ὑπὲρ μελάθρων φονώσαισιν ἀμφιχανὼν κύκλῳ 
λόγχαις ἑπτάπυλον στόμα 
μὲ ε 
ἔβα κτέ. 


The fact that the army-eagle (for only so can one represent the 
interlocking of sign and thing signified in this splendid passage) is 
depicted ‘agape with blood-thirsty spears about the seven-gated 
mouth’ seems quite enough to warrant some attempt at emendation. 
But the simple and handy correction of στόμα to πόλιν (Blaydes) or 
πόλισμ᾽ (Nauck) does not explain at all how στόμα came into the text. 
The conflict of ἀμφιχανὼν and στόμα in the vulgate suggests their 
reconciliation—dudiyavev στόμα, ‘with mouth agape’; but then we 
must change ἑπτάπυλον to érrarvAw—and this is precisely Semitélos’s 
inevitable and admirable correction. But he has not quite finished 
the good work; for we observe that in the strophe we have ἑπταπύλῳ 
near the beginning but not in quite the same place as in the anti- 
strophe. According to the principle so largely followed by the 
tragedians we might expect exact correspondence in this regard 
between strophe and antistrophe here. In the strophe ἑπταπύλῳ is 
evidently in the right place; for it cannot be moved to correspond 
with ἑπταπύλῳ in the antistrophe without spoiling the verse. But in 
the antistrophe érrarvAw and ἀμφιχανών can change places without 
affecting the metre, and by making them shift their positions we 
bring together elements that belong together in sense—érramtA 


1[MS. note. Cf. Proceedings of the Am. Phil. Ass. 29 (1898), p. xlvi-J 
3 [From the Classical Review, IX (1895), p. 15.] 


48 Greek Authors 


κύκλῳ and ἀμφιχανὼν στόμα. We thus see that the corruption of érra- 
πύλῳ tO ἑπτάπυλον is due to its false collocation with στόμα, the word 
κύκλῳ thrown together with ἀμφιχανών being, not unnaturally, taken 
as an adverb repeating du¢.—. I would, therefore, read and point 
thus (the pointing agrees with Professor Jebb’s) :— 
στὰς δ᾽ ὑπὲρ μελάθρων φονώσαισιν ἑπταπύλῳ κύκλῳ 

λόγχαις ἀμφιχανὼν στόμα, 

ἔβα, xré. 
I would add that the thing signified is obviously the van ( στόμα) of 
the army bristling with spears. 

In Antigone τ it seems not to have been observed by those that 
suspect (Nauck) or would emend (Wecklein, M. Schmidt) the 
word κοινόν, that Sophocles had in mind when writing this verse 
Aesch. Prom. 613 ὦ κοινὸν ὠφέλημα | θνητοῖσιν daveis—the metrical 
equivalent, syllable for syllable and caesura for caesura, of Ant, 1. 


MISCELLANEA. CRITICA? 


1. The action of Sophocles’s Antigone begins early in the 
morning of the day following the battle of the chieftains. The 
Argive army has fled in the night. [See vv. 100 sqq.] Antigone 
brings Ismene without the palace [v. 18 sq.] to tell her of the pro- 
clamation just [ἀρτίως v. 8] made by Creon. Of this Antigone has 
been informed privately [v. 9 sq.] and unofficially [ὡς λέγουσι, v. 235 
φασιν, ν. 27; φασι, v. 31]. After telling Ismene what is reported of 
the proclamation Antigone continues [vv. 31 sqq.]: 

τοιαῦτά φασι τὸν ἀγαθὸν Κρέοντα σοὶ 

κἀμοί---λέγω γὰρ κἀμέ---κηρύξαντ᾽ ἔχειν 

καὶ δεῦρο νεῖσθαι ταῦτα τοῖσι μὴ εἰδόσιν 

σαφῆ προκηρύξαντα κτὲ. 
The words φασι δεῦρο νεῖσθαι, taken in connection with Antigone’s 
previous designation of Creon as ‘the general’ [τὸν στρατηγὸν, Vv. 8; 
see Professor Humphreys’s excellent note], would naturally lead 
us to suppose that Creon had made his proclamation before the 
army but was not yet returned to the palace, when he intended to 
make a second proclamation τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσιν. 

With this supposition everything seems to be in accord. It is 


1 [From the Classical Review, IX (1895), p. 439.] 


οὕ ΔΩ͂Σ ΠΩΣ 








Sophocles 49 


therefore somewhat surprising to find Professor Campbell appar- 
ently the only supporter of this view of the situation. (See his 
Sophocles, 1°, p. 455: “Creon may not have followed far [in the 
pursuit of the Argives] and may have been recalled by the cares of 
State, though he is only returning to the palace when the elders 
encounter him.” [The italics are mine.] ) 

Professor Jebb says [on vv. 162-331]: “Creon, the new king, 
enters from the central door of the palace.” So too Professor Semi- 
télos [on vv. 162-331]: Ἔν ᾧ χρόνῳ ὃ χορὸς ἢ μᾶλλον ὃ κορυφαῖος ἀπήγ- 
γελλε τοῦς προηγουμένους ἀναπαίστους, ὃ Κρέων ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τῆς μέσης τῶν 
κατὰ τὴν σκηνὴν τριῶν θυρῶν ἐχώρει ἐπὶ τὸ προσκήνιον κτέ. 

But according to what seems a sound interpretation of Sophocles’s 
own words, as quoted above, Creon would have entered from the 
side, as one coming from the battle-field. 

2. In Ant. 178' the word yap has given several commentators 
needless trouble. To make the matter clear I will briefly analyze 
Creon’s speech from the beginning. “The gods have righted the 
ship of state [vv. 162 sq.], but J have summoned you, because I 
know your loyalty to Laius, to Oedipus, and to Eteocles and Poly- 
nices [vv. 164-169]. Since, then, they are dead, the supreme power 
in the state reverts to me by virtue of consanguinity [vv. 170-171].’ 
A less adroit prince than Creon might next have said “Therefore I 
expect you to be loyal to me. But Creon continues: “But it is 
impossible to know any man’s temper till he be tried in office [vv. 
175-177]. Then follow the words ἐμοὶ γὰρ κτὲ, which, if we are not 
tied down to the belief that yap always = ‘for’, we shall naturally 
render: ‘In my eyes then,’ etc. So we shall regard ἐγὼ γὰρ in v. 184 
as resuming ἐμοὶ γὰρ and shall render ‘J then’; and finally we shall 
regard ἐγὼ in v. ΤΟΙ as a resumption of the other two ἐγὼ. Whether 
or not we should write in vv. 178 and 184 γ᾽ ἄρ᾽ I will not undertake 
to decide. But I would call attention to Professor Jebb’s very 
laboured explanation of the two ydp’s [each = ‘for’!] in his com- 
mentary, and [as an exemplum in terrorem] to M. Tournier’s note 
in his Appendice Critique: “Tdp, loin de marquer l’enchainement des 
idées, ne sert qu’a en troubler l’ordre. Il faut écrire ἐμοὶ μὲν. It is 


1 [See notes on Sophocles’s Antigone (infra, p. 69) where Professor Earle begs the 
reader ‘‘to regard the present discussion as in part—but only in part—a palinode” 
of this article]. 


πο Greek Authors 


- 


a relief to find Mr Blaydes writing [on v. 178]: “ ἐμοὶ yap— Now 
to me, to me then,’ etc., in explanation of the preceding senti- 
ment.” 

It may be added that the fact that vv. 178-190 are resumed for 
transition’s sake in v. 101 in the form τοιοῖσδ᾽ ἐγὼ νόμοισι τήνδ᾽ αὔξω 
πόλιν excludes M. Tournier’s otherwise plausible θρόνοισιν [for νόμοισιν 
in v. 177. We see furthermore, that νόμοι in both places means 
‘principles of conduct.’ This brings us to the pertinent question, 
what does ἀρχαῖς [v. 178] mean? 

We have gathered from v. 101 that vv. ei aise are an explanation 
of νόμοισιν in v. 177. We find, furthermore, that v. 192 is con- 
trasted [καὶ viv] with v. 191. If we accept the traditional reading 
in v. 191 [τήνδ᾽ αὔξω πόλιν], which is well supported by Plato [Laws 
731 A, cited also by Professor Jebb], we must see here not a con- 
trast of time [between a future ἄρξω or ἄξω and νῦν] but a contrast 
of another sort. There must, then, be a contrast between νόμοισι 
and something else. That ‘something else’ is the κήρυγμα implied in 
κηρύξας ἔχω, and the contrast is, in more general terms between 
‘principle’ and ‘conduct,’ or ‘action.’ We may, then, venture to 
interpret ἀρχαῖς as ‘actions of a ruler.’ Thus we have a chiastic 
arrangement [a] ἀρχαῖς [v. 177]; [Ὁ] νόμοισιν [v. 177]; [b] ἐμοὶ 
γὰρ -- ποιούμεθα [vv. 178—190]; [a] καὶ νῦν --- πέρι [vv. 192-3],—the 
last fully explained in the verses that follow. Nor is this at all too 
subtle for Sophocles. 

3. In Ant. 580 sq. we read: 

φεύγουσι γάρ τοι xoi θρασεῖς, ὅταν πέλας 

ἤδη τὸν “Αιδην εἰσορῶσι τοῦ βίου. 
Professor Humphrey’s note on v. 581 is interesting: “ βίου depends 
on πέλας [ὄντα]. Without limiting gen., Eur. Alc. 24 ἤδη δὲ τόνδε 
θάνατον εἰσορῶ πέλας [visible presence]. The parallelism between the 
expression in the Antigone and that in the Alcestis is indeed strik- 
ing, though Professor Humphreys calls no further attention to it. 
The “visible presence” of Thanatos seems to be thought of by 
Sophocles almost as distinctly as by Euripides. 

Again in Ant. 806 sq. we read: 

par’ ἔμ᾽, ὦ yas πατρίας πολῖται, τὰν νεάταν ὁδὸν 

EO, νέατον δὲ φέγγος λεύσσουσαν ἀελίου, 

κοὔποτ᾽ αὖθις - ἀλλά μ᾽ ὃ παγκοίτας “Aidas ζῶσαν ἄγει 


“ΤΕΥ ΒΒ Ἂν 





Sophocles 51 


τὰν ’Axépovros 

ἀκτάν, KTE, 
With these words of the doomed Antigone we may compare those 
of the dying Alcestis (Alc. 259-263), particularly—dye μ᾽ dye μέ τις 
and πτερωτὸς “Avdas with ἀλλά μ᾽ ὅ---ἄγει, and οἵαν ὁδὸν---προσβαίνω with 
τὰν---στείχουσαν. But we find a still more noticeable parallel to the 
Alcestis in this passage of the Antigone. In Alc. 205-208 the tradi- 
tional text is 

ὅμως δέ, καίπερ σμικρὸν ἐμπνέουσ᾽ ἔτι, 

βλέψαι πρὸς αὐγὰς βούλεται τὰς ἡλίου, 

ὡς οὔποτ᾽ αὖθις, ἀλλὰ νῦν πανύστατον, 

ἀκτῖνα κύκλον θ᾽ ἡλίου προσόψεται. 
Valckenaer and Hermann have condemned vy. 207-8, and I have 
followed them in my text. But a comparison of the words in the 
Antigone νέατον ---- κοὔποτ᾽ αὖθις has suggested a somewhat different 
treatment. The expression in the Antigone is noticeable for its 
ellipsis: after κοὔποτ᾽ αὖθις we must mentally supply ὀψομέναν or the 
like. Now in the Alcesitis we shall have the same sort of expression 
(indeed, almost the same expression), if we simply drop v. 208 and 
put a full stop at the end of v. 207. We can then the more readily 
understand the introduction of Hec. 412 into the text of the 
Alcestis. 

Of course, all this, if sound, is but a further support of the theory 

of a close relation between the Alcestis and the Antigone. 





4. In Ant. 795 sq., 

νικᾷ δ᾽ ἐναργὴς βλεφάρων ἵμερος εὐλέκτρου 

νύμφας, 
Professor Campbell’s sound adherence to the Greek order of words 
has led him to join νικᾷ and ἐναργὴς (“i.e. ἐναργής ἐστι νικῶσα᾽). But 
this is not the end of the matter. In Thuc. 7, 55.1 we find 
Τεγενημένης δέ τῆς νίκης τοῖς Συρακοσίοις λαμπρᾶς ἤδη κτέ. Here the 
parallel passages cited make it extremely probable that we should 
accept Classen’s λαμπρῶς (Mr Holden, who keeps λαμπρᾶς, cites Aap- 
mpas ἐνίκα from Plut. Su//. 29,5). At all events νικᾶν λαμπρῶς seems 
to have been a current expression (cf. Schol. Ar. Ran. 73 Dind.) and 
we need not hesitate to see in the Sophoclean phrase a poetical νικᾷ 
δὲ λαμπρῶς. Shall we not then read νικᾷ δ᾽ ἐναργῶς ? 


52 Greek Authors 
NOTES ON SOPHOCLES’S ANTIGONE.* 


No satisfactory emendation of ἄτης ἄτερ in v. 4 has been suggested. 
It seems hardly likely that any such is forthcoming. Are not those 
scholars on the right scent after all that maintain the integrity of 
ἄτης arep and seek the corruption in the negatives? I cannot think 
that the simple change of οὔτ᾽ to οὐκ before ἄτης ἄτερ satisfies all the 
conditions of the case; nor would the change of that οὔτ᾽ to οὐδ᾽ do so 
without some further change in the sentence. However, I venture 
to think that οὐδὲν yap οὔτ᾽ ἀλγεινὸν οὐδ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ is right, so far as it 
goes; only we need to make the rest of the sentence conform to it. 
It is to be observed that in οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄτιμον in v. 5 we have a 
positive and a negative term of nearly the same meaning conjoined. 
Now if in v. 4 we are right in maintaining, as above, the soundness 
of ἄτης ἄτερ, we have in οὔτ᾽ ἀλγεινὸν οὐδ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ what is practically the 
same as a positive and a negative term of similar meaning correlated 
as parts of the same (negative) phrase. If v. 5 is to offer anything 
that shall at all exactly balance this, we naturally expect after 
οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρὸν something like (as far as the sense goes) οὐδ᾽ ὀνείδους 
ἄτερ Or οὐδὲ τιμῆς μέτα. This brings us to what I venture to suggest 
as possibly the original text here: 

οὐδὲν yap ovr’ ἀλγεινὸν οὐδ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ 
οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὐδ᾽ ἔντιμον ἔσθ᾽, κτὲ. 

I may add here that the reading advocated in v. 3 by Mr Paley 
and suggested inter alia by Mr Blaydes— « οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὁποῖον οὐχὶ vev 
ζώσαιν τελεῖ---Π85 long seemed to me pretty certainly right. 

What I have said in this Review (vi. 73)? about v. 24 needs some 


correction. Two glosses, χρησθεὶς δικαίῳ καὶ νόμῳ and κατὰ χθονός, ᾿ 


have indeed been used to make v. 24 (they were mistaken by some 
one for a verse accidentally omitted and then added in the margin, 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIII (1899), pp. 386-393.] 

2 [The note referred to ran as follows: 

χρησθεὶς δικαίᾳ καὶ νόμᾳ κατὰ χθονός. This verse, it appears to me, may be justly 
rejected from the text, and its presence in our MSS. explained as follows. Assume 
two glosses, one on σὺν δίκῃ (v. 23): χρησθεὶς δικαίῳ καὶ νόμῳ (the late use of xpnoGels— 
χρησάμενος is noticed by Jebb ad Joc.), and one on the brief ἔκρυψε (v. 25): κατὰ χθονός 
(we find κατὰ χθονός used by the Schol. on v. 65, for ὑπὸ χθονὸς of the text). When 
these two glosses had been jumbled into the text, by reason of their forming a trimeter, 
δικαίῳ was naturally changed to δικαίᾳ to force a sense upon the combination. It 
may be added that the simple κρύπτειν (Ξεεθάπτειν) occurs subsequently v. 285. ] 


Sophocles 53 


because they happened to scan as a trimeter) ; but κατὰ χθονός was a 
gloss on χθονί, which once stood at the end of v. 25. The word 
νεκροῖς at the end of v. 25 (in its traditional form) is due to a gloss 
vexpov ON νέκυν in v. 25. It is to be noticed that v. 26 is spatially just 
about the length of the word νέκυν longer than v. 25. The position 
of the gloss νεκρόν just after χθονί at the end of v. 25 would aid the 
process of corruption. I subjoin what I conceive to have been 
approximately the condition of the text of vv. 23-26 with the glosses. 
χρησθεὶς δικαίῳ 
Ἐτεοκλέα μέν, ὡς λέγουσι, σὺν δίκῃ καὶ νόμῳ 
κατὰ χθονός ΐ 
ἔκρυψε τοῖς ἔνερθεν ἔντιμον χθονί, νεκρόν 
τὸν δ᾽ ἀθλίως θανόντα ἸΤολυνείκους νέκυν. 

M. Tournier gives the right text, only he does not rightly explain 
how the present text arose, but talks of a ‘glose νεκροῖς ἃ χθονί, qui a 
été I’ origine de |’ interpolation’. However, it is to M. Tournier’s 
note that I owe indirectly this fuller explanation of the genesis of 
the present text. 

In v. 33 should we not read ταὐτὰ in the place of ταῦτα Κ 

Inv. 38 εὐγενὴς and ἐσθλῶν κακή are not properly contrasted terms. Pro- 
perly contrasted would be εὐγενής and δυσγενής or ἐσθλῶν ἐσθλή (Or equiva- 
lent) and ἐσθλῶν κακή. This brings us to the original form of the verse: 

εἴτ᾽ ἐγγενὴς πέφυκας εἴτ᾽ ἐσθλῶν κακή. 

The parodos of the Antigone is unfortunately considerably muti- 
lated. It seems pretty certain that the anapaests balanced, or rather 
that the anapaests are practically part of the strophes, as Mr Tyrrell 
prints them in his Parnassus Library text. Vv. 157 and 161 are 
both defective, as well as v. 112. It is quite possible too that there 
were several ‘strophic rhymes’ in vv. 100-162 that do not appear in 
the present form of the verses. Thus in vv. 136 sq. βακχεύων ἀνέμων 

 ῥιπαῖς ἐχθίστων ἐπέπνει may have been the original arrangement of 
the words in order to balance ἐκ μὲν δὴ πολέμων | τῶν νῦν 
θέσθε λησμοσύναν (150 sq.). So too the reading of L in v. 157, 
ἐλελίζων, inclines one to suppose that in v. 139 μέγας “Apys orv- 
φελίζων was the original order of the words. (Of the restora- 
tion of v. 117 I have spoken elsewhere: see Class. Rev. ix. (1895), p. 


15,1 and Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. xxviii., Proceedings, pp. X1.-xiv.) 
1 [See above, p. 47.] 
2 [See below a paper on Verbal Correspondence of Antistrophes in Attic Tragedy. ] 


54 Greek Authors 


In v. 320 there are at least two points of interest. First, δῆλον is 
unsatisfactory grammatically. The interlocking of the words—the 
hyperbatic arrangement—is plain. We have surely the common 
idiom of δῆλος with εἶναι and a participle. We shall thus accept the 
reading δῆλος of Aug. b. The gender of the participle ἐκπεφυκός is not 
strange. It is due merely to attraction to the predicate substantive— 
a common enough phenomenon. We come now to the question what 
that predicate noun was as Sophocles wrote it. Professor Campbell 
decided (with Messrs. Blaydes, Jebb and Tyrrell) in favour of 
λάλημα, adding to the citation of Eur. Androm. 937: ‘And this word 
fits more closely to the context of the present passage. “Fie, ’tis too 
clear you are a born chatterbox.” “Then it is clear that I never did 
this deed.” ’ But this is to use a false interpretation of v. 321 to 
support a reading in v. 320. For v. 321 means—Reiske’s γ᾽ for δ᾽ 
after ro can hardly but be right—‘without having ever done that 
deed at all events.’ Against the idiom of this verse (for which cf. 
O.C. 651, 848, 924; Plat. Euthyd. 283 C, 285 E) Professor Tyrrell’s 
conjectural reading οὔκουν τό δ᾽ ἔργον τοῦδ᾽ ὃ ποιήσας ποτέ sins quite as 
much as Professor Campbell’s translation. Is there then not good 
reason for accepting as the Sophoclean form of these two verses 
(320 sq) this >— 

-ὀἴμ᾽ ὡς ἄλημα δῆλος ἐκπεφυκὸς εἶ. 
—ovk οὖν τό γ᾽ ἔργον τοῦτο ποιήσας ποτέ. 
(Creon. What a born knave you are! 
Guarp. Without having ever done that deed at all events.) 

That from Creon’s point of view d nya connotes sophistical cun- 
ning, from the Guard’s criminality, is not against this interpretation. 
(See Xenophon on ὕβρις in Anab. 5. 8, 3.) 

It may be added that in Eur. Androm. 937, quoted by Professor 
Campbell, there is good reason in the sequence of ideas to regard 
the verse as made up of two expressions closely related in meaning 
and to read :— 

σοφῶν πανούργων, ποικίλων ἀλημάτων. 
The scholiast on the passage in the Antigone, it may be added, inter- 
prets ἄλημα (as he read) by πανοῦργος. 

The first antistrophe (342-352) of the splendid πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ 
chorus contains a famous crux. I venture to think that the combined 


Sophocles 55 


acumen of Hermann and Semitélos has restored the original form 
of vv. 349-352, though it seems not to be commonly so thought. I 
hazard a short discussion of this famous passage. To do it justice 
we must consider the first antistrophe as a whole. This antistrophe, 
like the strophe, falls into two portions closely related to each other 
but clearly distinguished. The division falls at the same place in 
each. As in the strophe vv. 332-337 (πολλὰ---οἴδμασιν), or, excluding 
the introductory words πολλὰ---πέλει, VV. 334-337 (τοῦτο---οἴδμασω), 
deal with man’s commerce with the sea; vv. 338-342 (θεῶν re—- 
πολεῦον), with his commerce with the land: so in the antistrophe vv. 
343-348 (κουφονόων τε---ἀνήρ) deal with the capture of ‘birds, beasts and 
fishes (I note that Professor Tyrrell’s ἀγρεῖ is probably right) ; vv. 
349-353 (κρατεῖ δὲ---ταῦρον) with the taming of beasts (see the schol. 
and Semitélos on v. 349). ep av ὑπ᾽ οἴδμασιν is answered by 
περ ιφραδὴς ἀνήρ and ἵππ ei ῳ γένει πολεῦον by οὔρ εἰ όν τ᾽ ἀδμῆτα ταῦρ ο v. 
(My reason for preferring the reading πολεῦον to πολεύων is thus plain ; 
of ἀδμῆτα as opposed to ἀκμῆτα I shall speak presently.) Now if, in the 
second half of the antistrophe, the part that deals with the taming of 
beasts, we keep the traditional text, we shall have the words κρατεῖ 
--ὐρεσσιβάτα explained by λασιαύχενά & —ratpov. But ἵππον and ταῦρον 
are evidently but species of the genus dypavAov θηρὸς ὀρεσσιβάτα, 
and we should, therefore, expect the substantives expressing the two 
species to be in apposition with the substantive expressing the genus, 
not the sentence containing the names of the species to be in apposi- 
tion with the sentence containing the name of the genus. Professor 
Semitélos has escaped the difficulty (rightly, I think) by writing 


κρατεῖ δὲ μηχαναῖς ἀγραύλους 
θῆρας ὀρεσσιβάτας, 


But this correction is reciprocally related to the correction of v. 351 
sq. Here Hermann, accepting the reading ἕξεται as containing 
merely an error due to pronunciation (I presume), proposed to 
read ἵππιον (for ἵππον, in order to get.) éére ἀμφὶ λόφον ζυγοῖ. 
Hermann’s defence of éére’ seems to me pretty satisfactory, and it 
is accepted by Professor Semitélos; but ἵππιον will hardly stand. 
Here Professor Semitélos again comes to the rescue and finishes his 
good work by the neat supplement ὃν after ἵππον. Thus we read our 
appositives 


56 Greek Authors 


λασιαύχενά θ᾽ 
ἵππον, < ὃν.» ἐξέτε᾽ ἀμφὶ λόφον ζυγοῖ, 
οὔρειόν τ᾽ ἀδμῆτα ταῦρον. 

Professor Semitélos does not indeed accept ἀδμῆτα ; but it seems to 
me that after κρατεῖ μηχαναῖς and fvyot he should have preferred a word 
that meant ‘untamed’, ‘unbroken’, to one that meant merely ‘un- 
wearied’, ‘strong’. 

Professor Blass’s discussion of the πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ Chorus in Fleck- 
eisen’s Jahrbiicher for 1897 (pp. 477-480, Zu Sophokles’ Antigone 
und Platons Protagoras) is worthy of attention, though it does its 
eminent author no great credit. I venture briefly to criticise it here. 

Professor Blass sets out to show that the word παρείρων in the 
second antistrophe (v. 368) is sound. To do so he begins at the 
beginning of the second antistrophe (σοφόν τι τὸ μηχανόεν xré.) The 
first sentence of his argument seems to call for some comment: ‘der 
vers τοτὲ μὲν usw. ist, wie Sauppe zu Plat. Prot. 344 anmerkt, dem 
dort citierten verse eines unbekannten dichters nachgebildet: αὐτὰρ 
ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς τοτὲ μὲν κακός, ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἐσθλός.᾽ It might appear from Professor 
Blass’s language as though he thought that Sauppe had been the first 
to point out this connection. But in the Erfurdt-Hermann edition 
of the Antigone of 1830, of which I have used not only my own 
copy but one that bears on the fly-leaf Sauppe’s signature as ‘studios. 
Philol. Lips. 1830’, the note on v. 364 contains the addition by 
Erfurdt: ‘Poetae obversatus videtur Theognidis locus, quem laudant 
Xenophon. Mem. I. 2, 20. et Plato Protag. p. 589. Heind.’ To this 
Hermann adds: ‘Versum, quem dicit Erfurdtius, αὐτὰρ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς 
τοτὲ μὲν κακός, ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἐσθλός, alius potius quam Theognidis esse, ex 
Xenophonte colligi potest.’ It can hardly be regarded as proof of 
any internal connection between the Protagoras and the Antigone, 
if we find the same ‘familiar quotation’ in each work in different 
contexts, especially as this same ‘familiar quotation’ appears in 
Xenophon in still another context as a favourite saying of Socrates. 
The coincidence is such that it proves nothing for Professor Blass. 

But he goes on to cite Prot. 320 C sqq. in proof of a striking 
similarity between’ Sophocles and Protagoras ‘oder Platon—man 
weisz ja nicht, wie viel etwa der Sophist in der schrift περὶ τῆς ἐν ἀρχῇ 
καταστάσεως hier. ..von selbst vorgetragen hatte—’ in the account of 
the development of civilisation. τέχνη, he says in effect, is the key- 


Sophocles 57 


note of both passages, and in the Antigone we are to understand 
with παρείρων the words εἰς τὴν τέχνην, the participle having the sense 
of ‘einfiigend in, verbindend mit’. One must be forgiven for think- 
ing of Nestor’s words of mild surprise in B 80-81. But let us 
examine this matter of similarity. Surely the difference between 
the two passages is quite as striking as the similarity. In Plato 
Epimetheus leaves mankind ἀκόσμητον, so that the theft of fire by 
Prometheus is necessary in order that man may obtain the ἔντεχνος 
σοφία; ἀμήχανον yap ἦν, Says Protagoras, ἄνευ πυρὸς αὐτὴν κτητήν 
τῳ ἢ χρησίμην γενέσθαι. The πολιτικὴ τέχνη was with Zeus, into 
whose citadel Prometheus was no longer allowed to enter ; therefore 
he could do no more than go into the common workshop of Hephae- 
stus and Athena—evidently in the lower town!—and steal thence 
for man’s behoof τήν re ἔμπυρον τέχνην τὴν τοῦ Ἢ φαίστου καὶ τὴν ἄλλην τὴν 
τῆς Αθηνᾶς. Thus far there is surely no parallel between Plato and 
Sophocles. But before we pursue our examination of this matter 
further, I wish to say something about a textual corruption that 
Professor Blass—with others—has tried to get rid of. The words 
διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ συγγένειαν in Prot. 322 A cannot be right. Whether 
Professor Blass’s συντεχνίαν for συγγένειαν helps matters, may fairly 
be doubted. Some time ago I hazarded a correction in the Classical 
Review (vii. p. 11), viz. διὰ τοῦτο, and tried to suggest the motive 
of the corruption. In regard to the motive I have nothing to add 
here; but I venture to suggest what is perhaps a better conjecture 
of the original form of the words, viz. δ αὐτήν (2.4. διὰ τὴν θείαν μοῖραν). 
If this conjecture really reproduces the manus Platonica, the passage 
has been corrupted either by a gloss (as I have suggested) or by a 
fancied correction (by supplement) after the loss of Y. 

To return to the parallelism, we find that in Protagoras-Plato 
man, gifted with the ‘fire-skill’ and thus in possession of a part of 


1 Why, we are not told. Is there here a trace of the tale of the Lost Paradise? 
and have the Διὸς φυλακαί (321 D) anything to do with Genesis 3, 24? 
? [The note referred to ran as follows : 

"Ered δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος θείας μετέσχε μοίρας, πρῶτον μὲν διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ συγγένειαν 
ζῴων μόνον θεοὺς ἐνόμισε xré. The words διὰ τὴν τοῦ θ. συγγέν. are nonsense in this 
context: nothing is said anywhere about ἀΐμε λέ with the gods. The text seems to 
have had originally πρῶτον μὲν διὰ τοῦτο ἕῴων μόνον xré., in which τοῦτο Ξε τὸ θείας 
ἀετασχεῖν μοίρας. The reading of BT, as quoted above, is the result of a thought- 
less gloss on τοῦτο. } 


~ 


58 Greek Authors 


what belongs to the gods,’ first invented a religion, then began to 
speak, to prepare and procure houses and furniture, to cultivate 
husbandry. But since men had not πολιτικὴ τέχνη, they dwelt separate 
and were soon almost destroyed by wild beasts, against which they 
could not wage war, because the πολεμικὴ τέχνη is a part of the lacking 
πολιτικὴ τέχνη. Thus men began to congregate and seek to protect 
themselves by building cities. But they trespassed against one 
another, because they had not the πολιτικὴ τέχνη, and were soon again 
scattered. Poor humanity is at length rescued from its plight by 
Zeus’s gift of αἰδώς and δίκη, in which every man must have his share. 
But what has all this to do with the chorus in the Antigone? 

There are many wonderful things, says the poet, but none more 
wonderful than man. He devotes himself to perilous navigation (is. 
master of the sea). He wearies by ploughing the great goddess: 
Earth (is master of the land). He catches in nets the nimble-witted: 
birds, the wild beasts, the fishes in the sea. He tames the horse and 
the bull. He taught himself (and here in the second strophe we 
come for the first time on something the least bit like chronological 
development? )—he taught himself speech, thought, liking to live 
in towns, building of houses. All resources has he in himself; noth- 
ing future, save death, will he encounter helpless; even remedies for 
overwhelming diseases has he devised. With all this wonderful capa- 
bility man turns sometimes to evil, sometimes to good, in the latter 
case loyal to the laws and to his oath,* standing thus high in the 
state: a man without a country is he whose boldness makes that 
which is not beautiful—evil—to dwell with him (1. e., as the chiasmus 
shows, he that ἐπὶ κακὸν ἕρπει): may none that does such things 
(that τὰ μὴ καλὰ ἔρδει τόλμας χάριν) be either neighbour or fellow- 
partisan of mine. 

1 We find here, as Professor Blass remarks, in Protagoras’s tale a very clumsy at- 
tempt at connecting primitive art and primitive worship. 

? If we seek to see chronological development earlier in this passage, we shall find 
man ploughing with the ἵππειον γένος before he has tamed the ἵππος. 

5 What Sophocles wrote where παρείρων stands may not be absolutely certain, but 
I believe that Professor Jebb is right in thinking that Reiske’s γεραίρων is it. The 
word πληρῶν in the scholion to v. 368 cannot well be a corruption of παρείρων. But 
παρείρων in the text might come from γεραίρων, or from πληρῶν unclearly written as a 
gloss on γεραίρων. At all events the righteous man is intended to be described as 


νόμιμος Kal €vopxos. Professor Blass seems to have misunderstood θεῶν ἔνορκον δίκαν == 
θεῶν ὅρκους. (With παρείρων for γεραίρων, cf. παρόντα for γέροντα, O. 7. 971.) 


Sophocles 59 


Where the ‘enge beriihrung zwischen dem Protagoras und der 
Antigone’ is to be found in the passages compared, I for one cannot 
discern. A connection between Protagoras’s μῦθος and the Orphic 
poem quoted by Sextus Empiricus (see Professor Blass’s article, 
p- 478) is more probable perhaps but is not proved. 

A marked difference between Protagoras’s tale and the chorus 
in the Antigone consists in this, that in Sophocles the independent 
activity of man is dwelt upon; nothing is said of supernatural inter- 
ference. This Professor Blass ignores. 

Professor Blass’s attempt to smuggle the word τέχνη into the first 
antistrophe of the chorus in the Antigone,’ in order to make it the 
subject of the second strophe, should be considered a lamentable 
failure. Albeit ἐδιδάξατο seems to be found only here in the sense 
of ‘taught himself’, yet that is justified, as Matthiae saw,’ by the 
circumstances of the case. Man ‘invented’, or, more forcibly, he 
‘taught himself’. ηὕρετο would come nearest, perhaps, to ἐδιδάξατο here, 
but would not nearly so well express Sophocles’s meaning. ξυμπέ- 
pacrac—‘has devised’, seems still more easily justified. Indeed, is 
either of these words more surprising than αὐτοφώρων = ‘which he 
caught himself perpetrating’ (Ant. 51)? and has not Sophocles— 
in the spirit of the higher Greek poetry—oftentimes strained a word 
or phrase—enriched its connotation at the expense of its denotation? 

It would thus appear that Professor Blass’s <mép’> after πάγων 
is an infelicitous, as well as needless, conjecture. What Sophocles 
wrote here cannot, perhaps, be said with certainty. One may content 
himself with <i> aiSpea (or <tr> aiSpa) as possibly right. (Pa- 
laeographically better is the διαίθρεια of the Campbell and Abbott 
edition. ) 

Though a connexion cannot be made out between Protagoras’s 
myth and Ant. 332-375, yet it is possible that the passage in the 


1 The μῦθος as Protagoras relates it has, as Professor Blass notes, no strict logical 
sequence. In this Plato may have wished to parody his sophist’s naiveté, Whether 
this be so or not, the story is certainly naive. If an ‘Orphic’ poem underlies the 
μῦθος, it in turn will have been based on a primitive legend. 

2 By reading ἵππον ἔχει τέχνᾳ ἀμφίλοφον ζυγόν. 

8 Gr. Gramm. 496, 8 ad fin, (* Media statt der Passiva’), ‘Soph. Ant. 354 kal 
φθέγμα---ἐδιδάξατο, wo nach dem gewodhnlichen Sprachgebrauch ἐδιδάχθη stehen sollte. 
Aber ἐδιδάχθη heisst, er lernte von andern passive, ἐδιδάξατο, er lernte durch eigne 
Thatigkeit ’. 


60 Greek Authors 


Protagoras where the quotation from the old poet occurs may have 
something to do with that chorus. In the chorus in the Antigone 
near the end of the second strophe stand the words νόσων ἀμηχάνων 
in the sense of ‘overwhelming diseases’; near the beginning of the 
second antistrophe stands the reminiscence of the old poet. In Prot. 
344 C we find the words ὃν ἂν ἀμήχανος συμφορὰ καθέλῃ quoted from 
Simonides and followed by an exposition of the term ἀμήχανος = 
ἀμήχανον ποιῶν, ‘overwhelming’, as there used. Three classes of εὐμή- 
χανοι are cited as rendered ἀμήχανοι by ἀμήχανοι cvppopai,—the skipper, 
the farmer, the physician. ‘For the good can become bad as well, 
as is witnessed by another poet, who said: αὐτὰρ---ἐσθλός.᾽ If this is 
more than mere coincidence, Plato may in writing the passage just 
quoted above have had the chorus of the Antigone in mind. But 
this is a mere possibility. 

A feature of Ant. 332-375 that has an important bearing on the 
interpretation of that passage both in whole and in part is the 
duality that runs through it, of which I have already cited a striking 
instance. But not only have we seamanship and husbandry, capture 
of the lower animals and taming of the lower animals coupled (vv. 
335-353) ; we find speech and thought, town-inhabiting temper and 
building of houses, frost and rain, resourcefulness and resourceless- 
ness, escape from death and escape from disease (vv. 354-364), 
evil and good, law and oath, civic dignity and civic disgrace, neigh- 
bour and partisan (vv. 365-375). The clear perception of this pair- 
ing of ideas in vv. 354-375 shows one that φρόνημα is sound, that 
ἀστυνόμους ὀργὰς is also sound and has the simple meaning given 
above, and that φεῦξιν is probably sound. Professor Semitélos 
changes φρόνημα, ὀργὰς and φεῦξιν. παρέστιος seems pretty clearly= 
πάροικος, ‘neighbour’, and ἴσον φρονῶνεεεσυστασιώτης. Local and political 
proximity are thus coupled. 

Vv. 450-452? Creon dismisses the guard (vv. 444 sq.) and turns 
to Antigone with the words σὺ δ᾽ εἰπέ μοι---μή μῆκος, ἀλλὰ ovvropws— | 
ἤδησθα κηρυχθέντα μὴ ποιεῖν τάδε; (Here Cobet’s ἤδησθα is certainly 
right. But the explanation given by Messrs. Wolff-Bellerman, Jebb 
and Humphreys of the construction of κηρυχθέντα I venture to think 
wrong. κηρυχθέντα μὴ ποιεῖντ-εἀπορρηθέντα κηρύγματι. The participle is 

1The following note was read before the American Philological Association at 
Trinity College, Hartford, Conn., 6 July, 1898. 


Sophocles 61 


not impersonal but agrees with τάδε.) Antigone answers: 7dy- τί δ᾽ 
οὐκ ἔμελλον; ἐμφανῆ yap ἦν (SC. κηρυχθέντα μὴ ποιεῖν tdde). Then 
Creon: καὶ δῆτ᾽ ἐτόλμας τούσδ᾽ ὑπερβαίνειν νόμους ; Antigone: οὐ γάρ 
τί μοι Ζεὺς ἦν ὁ κηρύξας τάδε | οὐδ᾽ ἡἣ ξύνοικος τῶν κάτω θεῶν Δίκη, | οἱ 
τούσδ᾽ ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ὥρισαν νόμους " | οὐδὲ σθένειν τοσοῦτον φόμην τὰ 
σὰ | κηρύγμαθ᾽ ὥστ᾽ ἄγραπτα (possibly ὡς τἄγραπτα with Brunck and 
Aug. b) κἀσφαλῆ θεῶν | νόμιμα δύνασθαι θνητὸν ὄνθ᾽ ὑπερβαλεῖν - κτέ. 
If we construe Antigone’s answer as is customary, we begin: ‘Yes; 
for from my point of view it was not at all Zeus that proclaimed 
this. The next verse would then naturally mean ‘nor was it that 
Justice that dwells with the nether gods’. But the next verse would 
then mean ‘who (referring to Zeus and Δίκη) defined these laws for 
mankind’. τούσδε νόμους here ought to mean the same thing as τούσδε 
νόμους in v. 449. But this is absurd—at least it is generally so con- 
sidered. Prof. Campbell does not find it so. He annotates: “The 
iteration of τούσδε, in contrasting the law which she obeyed with the 
edict of Creon, is dramatically appropriate, and there is no difficulty 
in the vague use of the demonstrative.’ Similarly Wolff-Beller- 
mann: “τούσδε νόμους mit deutlicher scharfer Beziehung auf Kreon’s 
Worte 449.’ In their Critical Appendix (5th ed.) we read further: 
‘Durch Valckenaers fast allgemein aufgenommene Konjektur τοιούσδ᾽ 
ἐν----ὥρισεν νόμους wird die beabsichtigte Zuriickbeziehung auf τούσδε 
νόμους 449 zerstort.’ I must agree with the majority that the tradi- 
tional text is indefensible here on account of the preceding τούσδε 
νόμους and that Prof. Campbell and Messrs Wolff and Bellermann 
are wrong. But before dealing directly with Valckenaer’s generally 
received conjecture I wish to return to v. 450 and to ask whether it 
is necessary to make Ζεὺς the subject of jv. As I read the verse, and 
as it seems to me almost, if not quite, necessary to read it, Ζεὺς 
cannot be taken as subject of jv, but must be predicate. My feeling 
for Greek certainly imperatively demands this. Let us see what this 
leads to. ‘Yes; for not at all in my eyes was the proclaimer of these 
things Zeus, nor (was he) that Justice that dwells with the nether 
gods, who (Zeus and Justice)’—did what? Not ‘defined these laws 
among mankind’, but ‘defined the laws among mankind’: not τούσ δ᾽ 
ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ὥρισαν νόμους, but τοὺς ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ὥρισαν νόμους. Some 
scribe under the influence of τούσδ᾽ ὑπερβαίνειν νόμους (449) made the 
natural blunder τούσδ᾽ for τοὺς here. This is substantially the course 


62 Greek Authors 


of interpretation and reasoning by which I arrived at what I believe 
Sophocles to have written here. But I am not the first to suggest 
this reading. Erfurdt had already reached the same result some- 
what differently. I quote his note from the Erfurdt-Hermann 
Antigone of 1830: ‘Vulgo τούσδ᾽, quod mihi etiamnum displicet. 
Quum enim τούσδε νόμους non intelligi possit nisi de iis legibus, 
quarum paullo ante vv. 443, 445: [= 447, 449] mentio facta erat, 
nominatim de edicto, quo Polynicem sepeliri vetuerat Creon, haud 
video equidem, qua ratione conveniant ista verba cum antecedentibus. 
Quippe sic dicitur ea lex Deorum niti auctoritate, a quibus consti- 
tutam esse Antigona modo negavit. Deinde quae Thebanis data 
fuerat, quo jure ἐν ἀνθρώποισι condita vocari potest? Itaque non 
dubito scribendum esse τοὺς, quo admisso οἱ ἐν ἀνθρώποισι νόμοι, Ut CuM 
Xenophonte Memor. iv. 4, 19, loquar, sunt οἱ ἐν πάσῃ χώρᾳ κατὰ ταὐτὰ 
νομιζόμενοι. SiC πᾶν τὸ ἐν ἀνθρώποις χρυσίον, in toto orbe terrarum, 
Xenoph. Ages. ὃ, 6. Supra v. 193 pro τῶν August. b. et Dresd. a. 
pari lapsu τῶνδ᾽ exhibent.’* That is an admirable statement, so far 
as it goes. Let us turn now to Valckenaer’s famous conjecture. 

This rests on two assumptions: (1) That Ζεὺς is the subject of ἦν; 
(2) That τούσδε νόμους in v. 452 must mean the same thing as τούσδε 
νόμους in v. 449. Of these assumptions [ believe (1) to be wrong 
and (2) to be right. I am sorry that the argument against (1) is 
so intangible. If both assumptions are right (as I deny them to be), 
then Valckenaer’s conjecture τοιούσδ᾽--ὥρισεν νόμους rises to the dig- 
nity of an emendation. Mr Jebb (no sure guide in such matters) 
Says it ‘is a certainly true correction’. It involves, it may be noted 
in passing, two changes, that of ot τούσδ᾽ to τοιούσδ᾽ (to my mind a rather 
violent change) and that of ὥρισαν to ὥρισεν. The scholion ἡ Δίκη, 
φησί, καὶ ὃ Ζεὺς ὥρισαν ὥστε θάπτεσθαι τοὺς νεκρούς Could be an explana- 
tion of Erfurdt’s text; it could also be an explanation, as it is gener- 
ally supposed to be, of the traditional text. 

Erfurdt’s reading involves an interesting question to which I shall 
presently refer. But before doing so, I wish to speak of another 
reading that has been proposed in v. 452. This differs from that 


1 It is worth while more fully to compare the passage in the Memoradilia cited by 
Erfurdt. It is as follows: ᾿Αγράφους δέ τινας οἶσθα, ἔφη, ὦ Ἱππία, νόμους ; Τούς Ὑ ἐν 
πάσῃ, ἔφη, χώρᾳ κατὰ ταὐτὰ νομιζομένους. --- ΤὩς τῶνδ᾽ in v. 193 (which is the reading 
of L) is due to τῶνδ᾽ immediately above it in v. 192. 


Sophocles 63 


of Erfurdt only in a minute detail, viz. in substituting τούς γ᾽ for τούσδ᾽ 
This was proposed by Professor Semitélos independently—eé ἐμῆς 
διορθώσεως, aS he expresses it—but had been anticipated by Vau- 
villiers. Though Professor Semitélos thinks that γ᾽ is not otiose 
(ἀργόν) but περιέχει τινὰ εἰρωνείαν καὶ πικρίαν ἁρμόζουσαν ἐνταῦθα, I fail to 
see its force. As we have seen, τοὺς in place of τούσδ᾽ is easily 
justified. 

The interesting question alluded to above has to do with the 
reference of the relative ot. I have already explained it as referring 
to Ζεὺς and Δίκη; but it may be said (the objection has already been 
made by Boeckh and not well answered by Mr Semitélos) that it 
should be Ζεὺς and ἡ ξύνοικος τῶν κάτω θεῶν Δίκη and that it cannot 
rightly be said that Zeus and this special phase of Δίκη (discussed 
by Mr Semitélos in his explanatory notes) defined the laws of 
mankind. It is not enough to answer with Mr Semitélos that the 
context shows that Antigone has in mind only burial-laws. That is 
simply not true, it seems to me. The answer is a simple one, I 
believe, but quite different, viz. that here, as elsewhere, the relative 
clause regards the antecedent noun in its most general sense, not in 
the modified sense that it bears where it stands. This is not an 
isolated phenomenon. The tendency to gravitate, by a sort of cen- 
tripetal force, from the specific to the generic, as a sentence lengthens 
out, may be amply illustrated in Greek and need not be dwelt upon 
here, nor need we glance at ὅστις. For the simple relative clause I 
will bring forward a few examples. Others are doubtless to be 
found. I do not know of any adequate—in fact of any—discussion 
of the phenomenon. Thus in 47. 463-465 Ajax says πῶς pe τλήσεταί 
(Telamon) ποτ᾽ εἰσιδεῖν | γυμνὸν φανέντα τῶν ἀριστείων ἄτερ, | Sv αὐτὸς ἔσχε 
στέφανον εὐκλείας μέγαν; Here τῶν ἀριστείων means specifically the 
arms of Achilles, ὧν means ἀριστείων generally, as is recognized in 
the Schneidewin-Nauck note: “ὧν wird angeschlossen als ob Aias 
nicht τῶν ἀριστείων, sondern allgemein ἀριστείων gesagt hatte.’ In 
Euripides’s Andromache Andromache reports that Hermione says of 
her that she wishes to dwell in Neoptolemus’s house in her stead 
ἐκβαλοῦσα λέκτρα τἀκείνης (SC. Ἑρμιόνης) Bia, [ ἁγὼ τὸ πρόσθεν οὐχ Exodo’ 
ἐδεξάμην, | νῦν δ᾽ ἐκλέλοιπα (νν.35--37). Here the ἃ in ἁγὼ refers not to 
λέκτρα τἀκείνης but to λέκτρα meaning Andromache’s relations with 
Neoptolemus. In Plato Protag. 357 E we read ὥστε τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸ 


64 Greek Authors 


ἡδονῆς ἥττω εἶναι, ἀμαθία ἡ μεγίστη, ἧς (SC. ἀμαθίας in general, not merely 
ἀμαθίας τῆς μεγίστης) ἸΠρωταγόρας ὅδε φησὶν ἰατρὸς εἶναι xré. So Lysias 7, 
18 πῶς ἂν οἷός τ᾽ 7) πάντας πεῖσαι τοὺς παριόντας ἢ τοὺς γείτονας (my neigh- 
bours), οὗ (neighbours in general) οὐ μόνον ἀλλήλων ταῦτ᾽ ἴσασιν ἃ πᾶσιν 
ὁρᾶν ἔξεστιν, κτὲ. : Lys. 32, 24 τὸ ἥμισυ τούτοις ὀρφανοῖς οὖσι λελόγισται, 
ovs (orphans in general) ἡ πόλις οὐ μόνον παῖδας ὄντας ἀτελεῖς ἐποίησαν 
(makes), ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπειδὰν δοκιμασθῶσιν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀφῆκεν ἁπασῶν τῶν 
λειτουργιῶν : Isaeus I, 13 καὶ τεκμηρίοις χρῆσθαι μὴ τοῖς μετ᾽ ὀργῆς πραχ- 
θεῖσιν (by Cleonymus), ἐν οἷς (acts of anger in general) ἅπαντες 
πεφύκαμεν ἁμαρτάνειν, κτὲ. I close this discussion with a Latin ex- 
ample (the only one I have at hand) from Justin (8, 2): et externae 
dominationi, quam (sc. dominationem, zo¢ externam dominationem) 
in suis timuerunt, sponte succedunt. 

In v. 540 Mr Blaydes has already suggested what I venture to 
think is the right reading: ἀλλ᾽ ἐν κακοῖσι σοῖσιν οὐκ αἰσχύνομα. The 
verse is somewhat like Eur. 4/c. 318, where 1 am glad to see that 
Mr Hayley agrees with me in upholding oir’ ἐν τόκοισι σοῖσι θαρσυνεῖ, 
τέκνον. 

Boeckh’s support of the assignment οὗ v. 572 to Antigone is a 
noteworthy instance of the invasion of classical philology by senti- 
mental bad taste. That vv. 574 and 576 should also go to Ismene 
is reasonably certain. The symmetry of the passage alone seems to 
demand it. It is possible that the verses between 571 and 575 have 
been disarranged and should be read in this order (I prefix vv. 569 
sq. because v. 570 seems to need a slight correction by punctuation) : 


KP. ἀρώσιμοι yap χἀτέρων εἰσὶν γύαι. 569 
ΙΌ. οὔχ’ ὥς γ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τῇδέ τ᾽ ἦν ἡρμοσμένα. 570 
ΚΡ. ἄγαν γε λυπεῖς καὶ σὺ καὶ τὸ σὸν λέχος. 573 
IC. ἢ γὰρ στερήσεις τῆσδε τὸν σαυτοῦ γόνον ; 574 
ΚΡ. κακὰς ἐγὼ γυναῖκας υἱέσιν στυγῶ. 571 
IC. ὦ φίλταθ᾽ Αἷμον, ὥς σ᾽ ἀτιμάζει πατήρ. 572 
ΚΡ. “Atdns ὃ παύσων τούσδε τοὺς γάμους ἔφυ. 575 


One cannot wonder that a woman of Antigone’s temper fairly 
loathes Ismene. For all that, in this scene Sophocles has given us 
a masterly characterisation of a certain sort of mawkish sentiment- 
ality—a characterisation as true to the life as it is disgusting. 

In v. 593 may not ἀρχαῖα τὰ Λαβδακιδ ὦ ν (50 E) ὁρῶμαι οἴκ wv (balanc- 


a ΜΠ τ ΉΠτ τ Ὁ 


Sophocles 65 


ing Vv. 582 εὐδαίμονες οἷσι κακ ὦν ἄγευστος aid v) be what Sophocles 
wrote? 

In vv. 599 sqq. unless we read <8> τέτατο θάλος and ape κοπίς the 
words λόγου τ᾽ ἄνοια καὶ φρενῶν Ἐρινύς would seem fitly to charac- 
terize the words of the chorus rather than the conduct of the 
heroine. 

Though it is not my intention to defend here the authenticity of 
v. 904 sqq., 1 venture to remark that the verses are not so bad as 
they have been often said to be. Professor Semitélos has rightly, 
I venture to think, corrected εἰ τέκνων μήτηρ to εἰ τέκν᾽ ὧν μήτηρ 
ἔφυν, in v. 905. V. 912 seems to have given Aristotle no trouble—if 
the MSS. are to be trusted. In v. 904 I think it may be fairly asked 
whether the traditional text would not mean ‘and yet it was J that 
honoured you in the eyes of right-thinking people’. If that be so, 
we should accept, as Mr Blaydes has done, Arndt’s καίτοι σέ γ᾽ εὖ 
᾽τίμησα τοῖς φρονοῦσιν εὖ ‘and yet I certainly (y’) did right in honouring 
you in the eyes of right-thinking people’. And here I may remark 
that in O.T. 597 the emphasis seems to be in favour of Musgrave’s 
αἰκάλλουσι as against the traditional ἐκκαλοῦσι. (I find that Meineke 
takes up this point much as I have done in the Analecta Sophoclea 
appended to his edition of the Oedipus Coloneus.) ‘Now by all am I 
greeted, now all salute me, now those that want something from 
you —if we keep ἐκκαλοῦσι, a word of essentially different meaning 
from the two others used of Creon and rather contrasted with 
χρήζουσι, we must, I think, read ἐκκαλλοῦσ᾽ ἐμε; but if we read 
αἰκάλλουσι we have a third verb of similar meaning with the other 
two used of Creon and forming a climax: with them and, further- 
more, not requiring the emphatic form of the pronoun (for which 
there is no manuscript warrant) in place of we. Aristotle ret. 1371 
ὦ Says καὶ τὸ κολακεύεσθαι καὶ ὃ κόλαξ ἡδύς - φαινόμενος γὰρ θαυμαστὴς καὶ 
φαινόμενος φίλος 6 κόλαξ ἐστίν. Does not this defend αἰκάλλουσι from 
the Greek point of view ? 


THE OPENING OF SOPHOCLES’S ANTIGONE? 
My conjecture as to the probable original form of v. 4 sq. has 
already appeared in this Review (xiii, 386),? and I still believe it to 
be right. At the same place I have also expressed my belief in the 


1[From the Classical Review, Vol. XVI (1902), pp. 3-5.] 
2 | See above, p. 52. ] 


66 Greek Authors 


correctness of Paley’s treatment of v. 3. In what follows here I 
wish to deal with some other matters pertaining to the correction 
and interpretation of this speech of Antigone’s. 

In the first place I can no longer believe that the words τῶν ἀπ᾽ 
Οἰδίπου κακῶν in v. 2 are sound. Professor Semitélos was right in 
objecting, as others had done, to the position of the word Ζεὺς and 
to the unnatural meaning that must be given to the phrase ἀπ᾿ 
Οἰδίπου. We find the phrase used in the natural sense and in the 
same position in the verse Ant. 193 (ἀστοῖσι παίδῶν τῶν ax’ Οἰδίπου πέρι)͵ 
A simple remedy for the words, which has not, however, to my 
knowledge been applied™by anyone, consists in changing τῶν to 
τοῖς. The collocation and contrast of Ζεὺς and τοῖς ἀπ᾿ Οἰδίπου are ex- 
cellent, and the κακῶν at the end of the verse would readily lead a 
careless copier to change τοῖς to τῶν. V.2 sq. will thus be=dp’ οἷσθ᾽ 
ὅτι Ζεὺς τοῖς ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου (—=rois Οἰδίπου τέκνοις) κακὰ πάντα νῷν ζώσαιν (gen. 
4 Ὀ50].--έν τῷ νὼ ζῆν) τελεῖ (ΞΞ-τελεῖν μέλλει) ; 

Secondly, in v. 6 I cannot believe that οὐκ ὄπωπ᾽ can be what 
Sophocles wrote. I venture to think that only if the words τῶν σῶν 
τε κἀμῶν belonged rather to the antecedent than to the relative clause 
(and that they do not) could the repeated negative be tolerated. 
But ὄπωπ᾽ is too little separated from the οὐ after ὁποῖον to justify 
the resumption of the negation by a second οὐ (οὐκ). That Todt was 
right in suggesting (Philo/ogus 31 [1872], p. 215) εἰσόπωπ᾽ as the 
original text can, I think, be made still more plausible by a passage 
in the Zvectra, where Sophocles writes (417 sq.) εἰσιδεῖν πατρὸς | τοῦ 
σοῦ τε κἀμοῦ δευτέραν ὁμιλίάν. Here the similarity of the first half of v. 
418 to the first half of Azz. 6 is at once apparent ; and the fact that 
with the half verse in the Ziectra εἰσιδεῖν is associated is certainly a 
fair argument to urge in support of Todt’s’conjecture. I may add 
that there is, on the other hand, an argument against Morstadt’s 
conjecture (Beitrige zur Exegese und Kritik der Sophokleischen 
Tragédien Elektra, Aias, und Antigone, Schaffhausen, 1864, p. 48) 
φίλων for κακῶν at the end of vs. 6 in Ziectra 763, where we read 
μέγιστα πάντων ὧν ὄπωπ᾽ ἐγὼ κακῶν. This verse seems clearly reminis- 
cent of Ant. 6: the fact that εἰσόπωπ᾽ could not be fitted in makes it 
invalid as a defence of οὐκ ὄπωπ᾽. 

It has not, I think, been duly noted that the words τῶν σῶν τε 
κἀμῶν are emphatic where they stand. That means that the evils— 
the xaxa—of Ismene and Antigone are to be contrasted by the latter | 





Sophocles 67 


with the evils of somebody else. That somebody else is Polynices : 
and after the καὶ viv, in which the νῦν is contrasted with the ἤδη im- 
plied in εἰσόπωπ᾽ (to accept the conjecture, though the sense is here 
the main point), we should expect, if we had thus far seen what 
Antigone were driving at—zod γνώμης εἴη----, a distinct reference to 
Polynices, and we should expect the tone of statement, not that of 
interrogation. The accepting of Reiske’s τοιοῦτ᾽ for τί τοῦτ᾽ (which 
correction, I may be permitted to add, had occurred to me a good 
while ago before I knew that Reiske had also made it’) preserves 
that tone of statement. But the accepting of τοιοῦτ᾽ carries us far- 
ther. We must read to the end of v. 8 in’ the tone of statement and 
then suddenly appears a question, the statement not being com- 
pleted. What has happened? Antigone has interrupted herself. 
She wants to be quite sure that she is not telling Ismene something 
that the latter already knows. (Ἤδη καλῶς in ν. 18 is, of course, 
equivalent to our ‘I thought not,’ ‘I was pretty sure you hadn’t,’ if 
my reasoning is sound thus far.) If we look on a little further, we 
get just what Antigone was going on to say when she interrupted her- 
self to question Ismene; for if in v. 21 we should substitute for od yap 
τάφου νῷν the words τάφου yap ἡμῖν, the tale which Antigone tells in 
v. 21 sqq, could be placed in immediate sequence to vv. I-8. ὡς 
λέγουσι in v. 23 recalls the φασὶ of v. 7. Indeed, I venture to think 
that Sophocles at first composed the opening of the Antigone in the 
form I have just indicated and then, thanks to a happy δευτέρα 
φροντίς, improved it by inserting vv. 9-20 and changing slightly the 
beginning of v. 21, which had been at first v. 9.” 

Before writing out vv. I-10 as I think we should read and point 
them I would note the meaning that must be given to Reiske’s—xai 
Σοφοκλέους κἄν σὺ μὴ θέλῃς---τοιοῦτ᾽, namely ἀλγεινὸν οὐδ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ καὶ 
αἰσχρὸν οὐδ᾽ ἔντιμον. It may also be added that Hermann Schiitz in 
his Sophokleische Studien p. 206 has strongly supported that inter- 
pretation of v. 10 which makes τοὺς φίλους--ἸΤολυνείκη and τῶν éx6pov= 


1 The correction would seem (see Mr Blaydes’s Adversaria) to have been made 
also by Naber. 

21 may add that it may further be noted as an interesting coincidence and per- 
haps a confirmation of what I have just written, that vv. 1-8 + vv. 21-30 (omitting, 
of course, 24 and making the consequent corrections) amount to 17, the same number 
that Antigone’s opening speech and Ismene’s answer make up together, as the play 
now stands. Verses seem to tend markedly to fall into groups of 17 in the Antigone. 


68 Greek Authors 


τῶν ᾿Αργείων. Furthermore, Professor Gildersleeve has shown that, 
by a peculiar form of ellipsis (akin perhaps in the case of individual 
words to such a phrase as ἡ τῆς βασιλείας νόσου ἀκμήΞτεὴ τῆς τῆς B.v.d.), 
the words στείχοντα τῶν ἐχθρῶν κακά may very well be taken as= 
στείχοντα τὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν κακά. But to this interesting matter of style 
I shall recur. The following is the form I believe vv. 1-10 should 
have :— 

Ὦ κοινὸν αὐτάδελφον Ἰσμήνης κάρα, 

Gp’ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι Ζεὺς τοῖς ἀπ᾿ Οἰδίπου κακῶν 

« οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ > ὁποῖον οὐχὶ νῷν ζώσαιν τελεῖ ; 

Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὔτ᾽ ἀλγεινὸν οὐδ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ 

οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὐδ᾽ ἔντιμον ἔσθ᾽ ὁποῖον οὐ 

τῶν σῶν τε κἀμῶν εἰσόπωπ᾽ ἐγὼ κακῶν, 

καὶ νῦν τοιοῦτ᾽ αὖ φασὶ πανδήμῳ πόλει 

κήρυγμα θεῖναι τὸν στρατηγὸν ἀρτίω---- 

ἔχεις τι κἀσήκουσας ἤ σε λανθάνει 

πρὸς τοὺς φίλους στείχοντα τῶν ἐχθρῶνϊκακά ; 

Before resuming the discussion of the peculiar form of ellipsis 
represented in v. 10, I wish to deal with another of Morstadt’s 
conjectures because it can be very prettily and conclusively proved 
wrong. Morstadt repeats (l.c.) his conjecture that vv. 15-17 should 
be shared by Antigone and Ismene in this way: 

ANT. ἐπεὶ δὲ φροῦδός ἐστιν ᾿Αργείων στρατός 
ἐν νυκτὶ τῇ νῦν, οὐδὲν οἶσθ᾽ ὑπέρτερον ; 
IC. οὔτ᾽ εὐτυχοῦσα μᾶλλον οὔτ᾽ ἀτωμένη. 
This involves a change of the traditional text that could be readily 
accounted for, were there not a very good reason for maintaining 
that no such change is necessary—to say nothing of the fact that 
there is no obvious urgent reason for redistributing the traditional 
text. This good reason is the presence of a very elegant chiasmus,— 
a figure that has not, I venture to think, been sufficiently attended to 
in Sophocles—or other Greek stylists. In Ismene’s speech as cus- 
tomarily read the arrangement is this: (A) Ἐμοὶ piv... ixer(o), (B) ἐξ 
ὅτου... χερί, (B) ἐπεὶ δὲ... τῇ viv, (A) οὐδὲν οἶδ᾽... ἀτωμένη. Here it 
should furthermore be observed (1) that ἐξ ὅτου is parallel with ἐπεὶ, 
(2) that οὔθ᾽ ἡδὺς οὔτ᾽ ἀλγεινὸς is parallel with oir’ εὐτυχοῦσα οὔτ᾽ ἀτωμένη, 
and (3) that μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ is parallel with ἐν νυκτὶ τῇ νῦν. The case for 
the defence is thus very plain. 


- 


τυ τυ ὧν οἐ 


Sophocles 69 


To return now to the ellipsis. Professor J. H. Wright in the 
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, xii. pp. 137 sqq., has 
brought together a number of examples, all of which I cannot accept, 
of this very interesting phaenomenon, which we might call in defer- 
ence to Sophoclean diction the ἁπλοῦν ἔπος (implying ἀλλὰ διπλοῦν ἔργον). 
Professor Wright calls it ‘euphonic ellipsis.’ The matter is worthy 
of more attention than it has received, albeit such investigations 
should be pursued with the extremest caution. I venture to think 
that we can explain in this way a troublesome place in the Electra, 
where (v. 316) we read Ὥς νῦν ἀπόντος ἱστόρει τί σοι φίλον. May we 
not understand this as for ‘Q.v.d. ἱστόρει εἴ τί σοι φίλον and write it 
(perhaps) ‘Q.v.d. ἱστόρεϊ τί σοι Hidkov? But sat paginae biberunt atra- 
menti. 


NOTES ON SOPHOCLES’S ANTIGONE: 
V. 178 ἐμοὶ yap ὅστις κτέ. 
The γὰρ ought to introduce either an argument or an explanation. 
It does neither. Professor Semitélos, in his too little valued edition 
of the Antigone, has alone shewn where the trouble lies and how 


it is to be remedied. He restores v. 191 to its pristine seat between 


vv. 177 and 178, making the necessary changes in vv. 175 and 177. 
He is at fault in one minor detail, viz., that he does not restore 
ποίοις instead of ἁ οἵοις at the head of v. 191. I feel sure too that a 
future is demanded instead of até; and that future can only have 
been ἄξω, as will appear, if one consider the endings of vv. 191 and 
178 and ask himself how v. 191 lost its place. But there are some 
interesting matters of symmetry in this great speech of Creon’s that 
can be properly appreciated only if the speech be presented in full 
with certain indications of the divisions of the parts. This I now 
do, making here and there certain alterations proposed by various 
scholars which (particularly, besides Professor Semitélos’s, that in 
v. 190) seem to me to be, for various reasons, demanded. I would 
beg the reader to regard the present discussion as, in part—but only 
in part—, a palinode of what I published on Creon’s speech in this 


Review, vol. ix. (1895), 439 sq.” 


1 Presented by title at the meeting of the American Philological Association at 
Union College, Schenectady, N. Y., July, 1902, [ and printed in the Classical Review, 
Vol. XVII, (1903) pp. 5-6.] 

? [See above, p. 49.] 


70 


Greek Authors 


ἔΑνδρες, τὰ μὲν δὴ πόλεος ἀσφαλῶς θεοί, 
πολλῷ σάλῳ σείσαντες, ὥρθωσαν πάλιν" 
«ες A \ aes. Ν “a > rd , 
ὑμᾶς δ᾽ ἐγὼ πομποῖσιν ἐκ πάντων δίχα 
a fh 

ἔστειλ᾽ ἱκέσθαι τοῦτο μὲν τὰ Λαΐου 

΄ aQn Ψ » ΦῸΝ Ζ 
σέβοντας εἰδὼς εὖ θρόνων ἀεὶ κράτη, 
τοῦτ᾽ αὖθις, ἡνίκ᾽ Οἰδίπους ὥρθου πόλιν 

3 ΝῊ , ? > \ Ἂν / μὴ 
κἀπεὶ διώλετ᾽, ἀμφὶ τοὺς κείνων ἔτι 


a , 2 , » 
παῖδας μένοντας ἐμπέδους φρονήμασιν - 


97> .“. see κ a , , 
ὅτ᾽ οὖν ἐκεῖνοι πρὸς διπλῆς μοίρας μίαν. 
ὦ ΄ » ᾿ ,ὔ ‘ 
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ὦλοντο παίσαντές τε Kai 
πληγέντες αὐτόχειρι σὺν μιάσματι, 
3 ἊΝ ΄, Ν Ψ > 3 , ΝΜ 
ἐγὼ κράτη δὴ πάντα καὶ θρόνους ἔχω, 
‘2 ΦῪ “4; “ lal 3 δ, 
γένους κατ᾽ ἀγχιστεῖα, τοῖν ὀλωλότοιν. 
3 Ἅ Ἂν, Ν 3 Ν Ἅ ἊΝ 
Αμήχανον δὲ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ὃν μαθεῖν 
4 Ν ΄ Ν , Ν Ἅ 
ψυχήν τε καὶ φρόνημα καὶ γνώμην, πρὶν ἂν 
ΕΣ a Ν ’ > a 4 
ἀρχαῖς τε καὶ νόμοισιν ἐντριβῇ, φανῶ 


ποίοις ἐγὼ νόμοισι τήνδ᾽ ἄξω πόλιν. 


Ἐ Ν Ἂν Ψ A We , aN » 
μοὶ γὰρ ὅστις, πᾶσαν εὐθύνων πόλιν, 
x “ 3 ,. 7 4 
μὴ TOV ἀρίστων ἅπτεται βουλευμάτων 
lal s 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ φόβου του γλῶσσαν ἐγκλήσας ἔχει 
κάκιστος εἶναι νῦν τε καὶ πάλαι δοκεῖ" 
καὶ μεῖζον ὅστις ἀντὶ τῆς αὑτοῦ πάτρας 
φίλον νομίζει, τοῦτον οὐδαμοῦ λέγω - 
: Ν ν Ν ε ΄’, ey ε aA ΓΕΘ 4 
ἐγὼ γὰρ---ἴστω Ζεὺς ὁ πάνθ᾽ ὁρῶν ἀεί---- 
οὔτ᾽ ἂν σιωπήσαιμι τὴν ἄτην δρῶν 
if “-“ “ 
στείχουσαν ἀστοῖς ἀντὶ τῆς σωτηρίας 
»v > na 
οὔτ᾽ ἂν φίλον ποτ᾽ ἄνδρα δυσμενῆ χθονὸς 
θείμην ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο γιγνώσκων, ὅτι 
σῷ» 9 Ν ε td Ν ,} » 
no ἐστὶν ἡ σῴζουσα καὶ ταύτης ἔπι 
πλέοντες ὀρθῆς πλοῦς καλοὺς ποιούμεθα. 
Καὶ νῦν ἀδελφὰ τῶνδε κηρύξας ἔχω 
3 A , a ee 207 , 
ἀστοῖσι παΐδων τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου πέρι. 
3 / A lal 
EreoxXéa μέν, ὃς πόλεως ὑπερμαχῶν 
ὄλωλε τῆσδε πάντ᾽ ἀριστεύσας δορί, 
rd 
τάφῳ τε κρύψαι Kal τὰ πάντ᾽ ἐφαγνίσαι 


ἃ τοῖς ἀρίστοις ἔρχεται κάτω νεκροῖς * 


τὸν δ᾽ αὖ ξύναιμον τοῦδε---ἸΠολυνείκη λέγω----, 


162 


165 


169 


170 


174 
175 


177 
IQI 
178 


180 


185 


190 
192 
193 


194 
195 


Sophocles 71 


ὃς γῆν πατρῴαν καὶ θεοὺς τοὺς ἐγγενεῖς, 
φυγὰς κατελθών, ἠθέλησε μὲν πυρὲ 200 
, ἊΨ 3 ¢ 2 7 : 
πέρσαι kat ἄκρας, ἠθέλησε δ᾽ αἵματος 
a ΄ Ἀ Ν 4 3, 
κοινοῦ πάσασθαι, τοὺς δὲ δουλώσας ἄγειν---- 
τοῦτον πόλει τῇδ᾽ ἐκκεκηρῦχθαι λέγω 


a / 
μήτε κτερίζειν μήτε κωκῦσαί τινα, 


ἐᾶν δ᾽ ἄθαπτον καὶ πρὸς οἰωνῶν δέμας 205 
καὶ πρὸς κυνῶν ἐδεστὸν αἰκισθέν τ᾽ ἰδεῖν. 206 
Τοιόνδ᾽ ἐμὸν φρόνημα, κοὔποτ᾽ ἔκ γ᾽ ἐμοῦ 207 


a ,ὔ 3 ε \ -“ » ᾽ὔ 
τιμῇ προέξουσ᾽ οἱ κακοὶ τῶν ἐνδίκων, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις εὔνους τῇδε τῇ πόλει θανών --- 


καὶ ζῶν ὁμοίως----ἐξ ἐμοῦ τιμήσεται. 210 


The symmetrical arrangement of these verses is as follows: After 
a proem of 13 verses (162-174, divided into 8 + 5; cf. the opening 
speeches of O.T. and O.C.) come 4 verses (175-177 + 191) that 
serve at once as transition from the preceding and as introduction 
to the core of Creon’s speech. Then come 13 verses (178-190) 
about the principles (νόμοι) of rulership. These are followed by 2 
verses (192 sq.) introductory of the exemplification by acts of the 
ruler (ἀρχαι) of the principles of rulership. These acts are set forth 
in 13 verses (194-206). The conclusion is made in 4 verses (207- 
210), an epilogue, as it were, balancing the prologue in vv. 175-177 
and 191. The scheme is this: 13 (8+ 5) |4.13.2.13.4. 
are | 


It should, it seems, appear entirely probable that nothing has been 
‘lost after v. 168. It is true that we have here a harshness, an illog- 
icalness; for τοὺς κείνων παίδας (168) means Oedipus together with 
Eteocles and Polynices, whereas ἐκεῖνοι (170) means only Eteocles 
and Polynices. But the break between v. 169 and v. 170 may, per- 
haps, be thought to mitigate this hardness of expression. 

It may be asked here how v. 191 came to be inserted after v. 190, 
after its likeness of ending to v. 178 had led to its being dropped 
out of its original place in the speech. This question can, I think, 
be answered best by assuming that the archetype of the MSS. of 
Sophocles had 38 verses to the page or column. For, if we count 
the verses from the beginning to v. 190, we shall find that the 
Aristotelian prologue contains (omitting the spurious vs. 24) 97 
verses; that the parodus contains, if we count the glyconics sepa- 


72 Greek Authors 


rately and make the second strophic couplet have, as it should, in a 
right division of the verses, 8 verses to the strophe, 64 verses; and 
that we have 29 verses of the first episodion to add. This makes a 
total of 190, which is = 38 X 5; that is, v. 190 was the last verse of 
the fifth page in our archetype. My assumption then is that v. 101 
was added by the scribe of the archetype or the reviser of the arche- 
type (more probably by the former) at the foot of the fifth page 
under v. 190 and was, by an error of the writer of the codex next 
in descent from the archetype, retained between v. 190 and v. 192. 
Some person or persons botched vv. 175, 177, and ΤΟΙ into their 
present form, wholly or partly in order to make them fit the new 
context better. It may be added here that vv. 495 and 496, which 
would read better after v. 493, may once have been at the end of 
θ:.1.. 

Vv. 289-294 seem not to have been well explained. If we read 
very carefully we shall, I think, see that ταῦτα in v. 289 cannot be 
the object of ἐρρόθουν. Unless I am mistaken, ταῦτα refers to Poly- 
nices’s burying and is = τὸ τόνδε τὸν νεκρὸν θάψαι Or πρόνοιαν ἴσχειν τοῦδε 
τοῦ νεκροῦ πέρι (ν. 283). If this is so, ταῦτα has no proper construc- 
tion but is resumed by τάδε in v. 294. ταῦτα would have a construc- 
tion of its own if v. 293 sq. were something like this: καὶ viv;(answer- 
ing to καὶ πάλαι in ν. 289) τούτους παρήγαγον μισθοῖσιν ὥστ᾽ ἐργάσασθαι, 
so that the subject of παρήγαγον should be ἄνδρες μόλις φέροντες ἐμοὶ 
and ταῦτα the object of ἐργάσασθαι. The passage should I think, be 
thus pointed : 


ἀλλὰ ταῦτα Kat πάλαι πόλεως 
ἄνδρες μόλις φέροντες ἐρρόθουν ἐμοὶ 290 
a ΄ ΄ 299 εν a 
κρυφῇ, κάρα σείοντες οὐδ᾽ ὑπὸ ζυγῷ 
λόφον δικαίως εἶχον ὡς στέργειν ἐμέ--- 
> “Ὁ , 9 ΄ ΄-“ 
ἐκ τῶνδε τούτους ἐξεπίσταμαι καλῶς 


΄ a > / ΄ 
παρηγμένους μισθοῖσιν εἰργάσθαι. τάδε. 


1 ἀντιτύπᾳ δ᾽ ἐπὶ γᾷ πέσε τανταλωθεὶς 
πυρφόρος ὃς τότε μαινομένᾳ ξὺν ὁρμᾷ 
βακχεύων ἐπέπνει ῥιπαῖς 
ἐχθίστων ἀνέμων. 
εἶχε δ᾽ ἄλλᾳ τὰ μέν (corrupt), 
ἄλλα δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλοις ἐπενώμα μέγας A- 
ρης στυφελίζων 
δεξιόσειρος .----ἦν. 134-142. 


Sophocles 73 


‘No; that (ταῦτα, 2.4. what you say the gods did—bury Polynices) 
I know full well that these guards (rovrovs) did, seduced by hire by 
certain of the citizens (πόλεως ἄνδρες) that, vexed at me (μόλις φέροντες 
ἐμοὶ), had long been muttering in secret (ἐρρόθουν κρυφῇ, clam mussi- 
tabant Liv. 33. 31, 1), shaking the head and not holding the neck 
properly under the yoke (008 . . . εἰχονεεεοὐδ᾽ ἔχοντες) SO as to accept me 
(as their ruler).’ I admit, of course, that the construction is ex- 
tremely harsh ;* but there are many harshnesses in the Axtiyone. 

In v. 504 dvddvea, not ἁνδάνειν, is the reading of L. This may per- 
haps be right; for we may now understand v. 504 sq. thus: 


Τούτοις (the chorus) τοῦτο πᾶσιν ἁνδάνει 
(this to Creon; then to the chorus with indignation )— 
λέγοιτ᾽ ἄν, εἰ μὴ γλῶσσαν ἐγκλήοι φόβος. 


DE SOPHOCLIS ANTIGONAE VV. 45 ET 46. 


Verba quae sunt Tov γ᾽ οὖν ἐμὸν καὶ τὸν σὸν, ἢν σὺ μὴ θέλῃς | ἀδελφόν ab 
ea una solaque femina dici possunt quae neque cum sorore nec uno 
de fratre loquatur. Hic murus aeneus esto. Sequitur continuo ut 
locus sit corruptus ; atque per scholia antiqua certiores facti sumus 
Didymum dixisse a commentatoribus (ὑπὸ τῶν ὑπομνηματιστῶν) versum 
46"" spurium indicatum esse (νενοθεῦσθαι). At eo deleto versu quo 
modo intellegi potest versus 45°°? Nam nomen substantivum ma- 
sculini generis subauditur, neque tamen id fratris nomen potest esse. 
De uno vocabulo τάφον supplendo videtur cogitari posse, quod eodem 
esset accipiendum sensu atque τοῦ τάφου μέρος, sepulturae partem, 
ut plena sit sententia τόν γ᾽ οὖν ἐμὸν <rddov νοῶ θάπτειν ope >—xal τὸν 
σόν, ἢν σὺ μὴ θέλῃς. Atque sic eos locum interpretari solitos esse qui 
versum 46™ damnarunt, e priore de duabus quae in scholiis antiquis 
sunt explicationibus apparet, quae explicatio haec est: εἰ μὴ σὺ 
θέλεις θάπτειν, ἐγὼ τοῦτο ποιήσω μόνη. Dixerit hic quispiam: at inaudi- 
tum inculcatum id ellipsis genus graecaeque linguae indoli vix con- 
gruens. Audio atque inusitatissimam esse talem ellipsim do et 
concedo—nisi forte #7. 1075 τὸν ἀεὶ pro τὸν del χρόνον sanum est. 
Sed quid facerem? Nam versus 45" per se spectatus optime con- 
structus videtur; neque umquam quisquam homo versum 46" ad- 
didisset, nisi τὸν ἐμὸν in versu 45° legisset. Traditae scripturae ve- 


1 [From Revue de Philologie XXVIII (1904), p. 122. 


74 Greek Authors 


stigia premere studui, quo facto, si nihil aliud effeci, at clarius quam 
fieri solet huius loci rationem exposuisse mihi videor. 


NOTE ON SOPHOCLES’S ANTIGONE 1204 563 


πρὸς λιθόστρωτον κόρης 
νυμφεῖον ἽΑιδου [κοῖλον] εἰσεβαίνομεν. 

It is inexplicable to me that the traditional reading here seems 
never to have been disputed. Jebb (with whom Humphreys agrees) 
says : “κόρης νυμφεῖον---Αἰδου, the maiden’s death-bower: cp. 795 n., 
929.” (The former of the illustrations is different; the latter, 
debatable, perhaps glossed.) Schneidewin-Nauck also say: “vpdoetov 
*Aidov (654. 816 [only remotely applicable] ), Grabesbrautgemach, 
WOZU κόρης tritt, wie 1184 [hardly parallel]. Eur. Herc. 562 “Adov 
τὰσδε περιβολὰς κόμης [the position of words different]. Vgl. Soph. 
El. 681 τὸ κλεινὸν Ἑλλάδος πρόσχημ᾽ ἀγῶνος " (see below). 

A repeated reading of the passage convinces me that I am right 
in feeling that to a hearer the sense demanded by the order of the 
words, and also by the fact that νυμφεῖον already has an adjective in 
λιθόστρωτον, is this: “To the girl’s stone-floored bridal-chamber, 
Hades’ (? substantive in app. to νυμφεῖον), we were approaching.” 
If Sophocles wrote κοῖλον he (1) added a superfluous and more than 
flat epithet to a substantive already well supplied, and (2) gave such 
epithet a harsh and disturbing position. Either λιθόστρωτον κόρης vup- 
φεῖον Αιδου, or (setting aside the metre) κοῖλον κόρης νυμφεῖον “Ardov, would 
be all very well; and it is precisely such expressions that the parallel 
passages support—were there need of supporting them: but not 
the expression in our texts. Of course, one would not expect of 
Sophocles that he use κοῖλον as a substantive here; but why not (a 
natural supposition) regard κοῖλον as a gloss which has supplanted 
the right word? That right word seems to be either κεῦθος (which 
may be supported by v. 818 és τόδ᾽ ἀπέρχει κ εῦθος νεκύων), Or γύαλον 
(which may be supported, perhaps better, by the scholion on L on 
Philoctet. 1081 : γύαλον δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ κεῦθος - κυρίως δὲ γύαλα τὰ κοῖλα. 
λέγεται). I would therefore read: 


νυμφεῖον, “Ardov tee ) εἰσεβαίνομεν. 
γύαλον 


1 [From the Am. Jour. of Phil. Vol. XIII (1892), p. 483-] 





Sophocles 78 


CRITICAL NOTE ON CERTAIN PASSAGES IN SOPHO- 
CLES’S ANTIGONE.* 


Vv. 82 sqq. IC. οἴμοι ταλαίνης, ὡς ὑπερδέδοικά σου. 
ΑΝ. μὴ 0d προτάρβει- τὸν σὸν; ἐξόρθου πότμον. 
IC. ἀλλ᾽ οὖν προμηνύσῃς γε τοῦτο μηδενὶ 
τοὔργον, κρυφῆ δὲϊκεῦθε, σὺν δ᾽ αὔτως ἐγώ. 
ΑΝ. οἴμοι, καταύδα - πόλλον ἐχθίων ἔσῃ 
σιγῶσ᾽, ἐὰν μὴ πᾶσι κηρύξῃς τάδε. 

In v. 86 οἴμοι has long seemed to me wrong. Jebb slides over it 
in his commentary. In his translation he gives “Oh, denounce it!” 
which may be natural English, but does not adequately represent 
the Greek. The Schneidewin-Nauck commentary gives nothing; 
nor is Blaydes’s note (“An exclamation.here of indignation. Cf. 
320.”) of much more service. Professor Humphreys offers us at 
least something more when he annotates οἴμοι thus: “Of disapproval 
or satisfaction. So even οἴμοι κακοδαίμων, of rage. Ar. Av. 1051. 
In id. 1260 οἴμοι τάλας may be ironical.’ But even this is unsatisfac- 
tory: the presence of κακοδαίμων and τάλας after οἴμοι in the Aristo- 
phanic citations robs them of all appositeness, and we are left no 
better off than before. Let us confess it frankly. This is a case 
for emendation, not explanation. Why should we not restore the 
vigorous and apt μή μοι (perhaps better written here μὴ ‘ot or μὴ 
ἐμοί) The source of the corruption is not far to seek, being con- 


. .. OIMOI 
tained in MHMOY 


the two neighboring passages in such a way as to produce the 
present state of affairs in the text. In further support of this emenda- 
tion may be compared vv. 544-7: 


above. A scribe was quite capable of jumbling 


IG, μή τοι, κασιγνήτη, μ᾽ ἀτιμάσῃς τὸ μὴ οὐ 
θανεῖν τε σὺν σοὶ τὸν θανόντα θ᾽ ἁγνίσαι. 
ΑΝ. μή μοι θάνῃς σὺ κοινά, μηδ᾽ ἃ μὴ 'θιγες 
ποιοῦ σεαυτῆς - ἀρκέσω θνησκουσ᾽ ἐγώ. 
Here, though there is no ellipsis, there is yet a striking similarity in 
the tone of harsh refusal and repulsion. 
Vv. 404 sq. ταύτην γ᾽ ἰδὼν θάπτουσαν ὃν σὺ τὸν νεκρὸν 


ἀπεῖπας. 


1[From the Proceedings of the Am. Phil. Ass., Vol. XXIV (1903), p. xxxviii. ] 


70 Greek Authors 


Every one feels the harshness of the position of τὸν νεκρὸν. The 
words may be sound, but they look like a gloss. Perhaps they may 
have taken the place of τοῦτο δρᾶν. 

Vv. 417 sq. καὶ τότ᾽ ἐξαίφνης χθονὸς 
τυφὼς;: ἀείρας σκηπτόν, οὐράνιον ἄχος. 

οὐράνιον ἄχος has given trouble for more reasons than one. I would 
suggest ἄχθος οὐρανοῦ as possibly the original form of the words. If 
ἄχθος became ἄχος, transposition and a change from gen. to adj. might 
follow. 

Vv. 478 sq. οὐ yap ἐκπέλει 
φρονεῖν μέγ᾽ ὅστις δοῦλός ἐστι τῶν πέλας. 

So dubious a word as ἐκπέλει is in more than suspicious company 
when it stands over πέλας. There has doubtless been contamination 
between the ends of vv. 478 and 479. Blaydes writes: “Qu. οὐ yap 
οὖν πρέπει (or πέλει). The former is nearer what I believe Sophocles 
wrote ; viz., evrpemés. (Cf. Class. Rev. VII., p. 344.) 

VV. 1001 sq. ἀγνῶτ᾽ ἀκούω φθόγγον ὀρνίθων, κακᾷ 
κλάζοντας οἴστρῳ καὶ βεβαρβαρωμένῳ. 

We read smoothly enough through οἴστρῳ καὶ ; but after the καὶ we 
get a mental jolt. We are all ready for another attribute to the 
ὄρνιθας implied in φθόγγον ὀρνίθων, when we have an attribute to οἴστρῳ 
suddenly thrust upon us. Here again I feel sure there has been 
contamination, an original Be Bap βαρωμένου ςΞε ἀσαφεῖς having been 
assimilated to κακῷ above it. The loci classici for the ‘barbarism’ of 
birds (Hdt. 2, 57; Ar. Av. 199; Aesch. Ag. 1050 sq.) are also in 
favour of the reading proposed. (In the very similar passage, Eur. 
Alc. 777, we should follow Nauck’s suggestion [Zur. Studd. I1., p. 
85], and read συνωφρυωμένος [éw-] for συνωφρυωμένῳ.}" 


NOTE ON SOPHOCLES’S ANTIGONE. 427 sq.* 


In Sophocles’s Antigone 427 sq. we read ἐκ δ᾽ ἀρὰς κακὰς | ἦρᾶτο ‘and 
prayed bad prayers’, i.e. ‘and cursed’. With this we may compare 
two Homeric phrases: A 284 ἕρκος ᾿Αχαιοῖσιν πέλεται πολέμοιο κακοῖο “15 
a bulwark for the Achaeans against bad war’, i.e. ‘defeat’ ; and Τ' 173 
ὡς ὄφελεν θάνατός μοι ἁδεῖν κακός ‘would that bad death had pleased me’, 
‘that it had pleased me to commit suicide’. Mr Leaf seems not to 
have understood the latter place: see his note. 

1[See below, note on Herc. Fur. 667.] 2 [See above, p. 6.] 3 [Ms. note.] 


Sophocles ΨΩ 


ON TWO PASSAGES OF SOPHOCLES’S ELECTRA: 
I.—153-163. 

If we try to construe this passage according to the traditional text, 
vv. 153-155 can only mean: “Not to you alone, my child, has a grief 
come in respect of which you surpass those that are within.’ But 
such a remark does not square with the evident intention of the 
Chorus nor with the following words. Prof. Kaibel has seen the 
difficulty and has evaded it. His words should be quoted here. He 
writes (ad loc): ‘Hier ist πρὸς ὅτι “in Bezug auf welches Leid” 
( ἄχος) freilich etwas prosaisch, zudem sollte man πρὸς 6 erwarten. 
[The italics are mine—M. L. E.] Aber die Prosa wird man hin- 
nehmen miissen, und in ὅτι scheint die unbestimmte Allgemeinheit 
des regierenden Satzes nachzuwirken (‘alle Menchen haben Leid’”’) ; 
keinesfalls darf man determinative Relativsatze vergleichen, in 
denen ὅστις mit Recht steht (G. Hermann praef. OT p. viii.): der 
Satz ist selbstandig und lautet nicht πρὸς 6 τι δικαίως ἂν σὺ περιττὴ εἴης. 
Die fiir den Chor undenkbare Brutalitat πρὸς τί δὲ σὺ τῶν ἔνδον εἶ 
περισσά ; hatte niemandem einfallen sollen.’ I can not but think that 
it is rather the ‘unbestimmte Allgemeinheit’ of Prof. Kaibel’s theory 
of Greek relative clauses than that quality in the antecedent clause 
here that we should recognise. Yet who has thought to question 
᾿ὅστις in Eur. Med. 220, a reading that I believe to be demonstrably 
wrong in the context? The fact is that a simple relative is demanded 
in v. 155. Such simple relative may be obtained without the change 
of a single letter by merely setting the proper diacritical marks. 
That I shall now do, as I think; and besides I will set down the 
whole context, as I would read it. 

Οὔ τοι σοὶ μούνᾳ, τέκνον, 

ἄχος ἐφάνη βροτῶν, 

πρὸς ὃ τί σὺ τῶν ἐν γένει περισσὰ 

οἷς ὁμόθεν εἶ καὶ γονᾷ ξύναιμος ; 

οἵα, Χρυσόθεμις ζώει καὶ Ἰφιάνασσα 
κρυπτᾷ τ᾽ ἀχέων ἐν ἥβᾳ--- 
ὄλβιος----ὃν ἃ κλεινὰ 

γᾶ ποτε Μυκηναίων 

δέξεται εὐπατρίδαν Διὸς εὔφρονι 
βήματι μολόντα τάνδε γᾶν---Ορέσταν. 

[From the Classical Review, Vol. XVI (1902), pp. 5-7-] 


78 Greek Authors 


To this text 1 would append a note or two, as follows. τί σὺ περισσὰ 
(sc. εἶ) means ‘in what respect have you more?’ The ‘grief’ or 
‘sorrow (ἄχος) as here thought of is potential rather than actual. 
Electra is no more deeply concerned by right in the family sorrow 
and shame than her sisters and her brother. There is the same 
‘Brutalitat’ in my reading as in the conjectural reading condemned 
by Professor Kaibel; but I deny that it is ‘undenkbar.’ ἐν γένει 
(Blaydes) is pretty clearly demanded by what follows. It is only 
by an artifice of modern printing that Orestes can be separated 
from Chrysothemis and Iphianassa. His name is held until the 
end—to mention nothing else—in such wise that the three are most 
closely linked together. And he is distinctly not ἔνδον. ols... ξύναι- 
pos is an essential and restrictive relative clause closely linked with 
τῶν ἐν γένει and not to be set off by acomma. It seems not to be 
well understood. It means ὧν ὁμομητρῶώ εἶ καὶ ὁμοπατρία ἀδελφή. The 
adv. ὅμόθεν is=ex τῆς αὐτῆς γαστρός, and γονή is used here in the sense 
of semen virt. ὄλβιος seems most naturally to be taken as an ejacu- 
lation, and ἀχέων must be ‘noun and not participle (so Professor 
Kaibel). The relative clause dv... γᾶν does duty as a substantive, and 
᾽Ορέσταν is attracted to ov. The whole is=’Opéoras, ὅν... γᾶν. The 
words κρυπτᾷ... ἥβᾳ of course belong to ζώει understood. In view 
of the strain that Sophocles has put upon the meaning of other words 
in other places, I hesitate, with Sir R. C. Jebb, to change βήματι, 
which, and not Διὸς, seems to demand change, if change is to be 
made. The proximity of μολόντα might have helped to change νεύματι 
to βήματι. But the matter is an exceedingly difficult one to decide. 





II.— 681-687. 


The current explanation of Δελφικῶν ἄθλων χάριν (ν. 682) joins these 
with ἐλθὼν (v. 681). To this construction there appears to bea fatal 
objection, namely that the words τὸ κλεινὸν (Or κοινὸν) Ἑλλάδος πρόσχημ᾽ 
ἀγῶνος, ‘the famous (or ‘common’) assemblage-prominence of Greece’ 
as, it seems, we should literally render, cannot, without an added 
epithet of some sort, describe the Pythian πανήγυρις. That vv. 681 
and 682 are essentially sound as they stand in the Sophoclean MSS. 
there would appear to be no good reason to doubt. The fact that 
Sophocles is referring to a πανήγυρις and that the idea of κλεινὸν 
would be practically repeated in πρόσχημ᾽ seems to favour the read- 


ee a δο νὼ. 


Sophocles 79 


ing of Thomas Magister, κοινὸν for κλεινὸν, in v. 681; but that may 
be justly regarded as a minor matter. A construction of the words 
Δελφικῶν ἄθλων χάριν that I have not met with elsewhere but that 
seems to me certainly right, makes v. 681 sq. perfectly plain. Join 
és τὸ κοινὸν Ἑλλάδος πρόσχημ᾽ ἀγῶνος Δελφικῶν ἄθλων χάριν, understanding 
the words as though they had been arranged ἐς τὸ κοινὸν Ἑλλάδος 
Δελφικῶν ἄθλων χάριν πρόσχημ᾽ ἀγῶνος, Which is only a compacter way 
of saying és τὸ κοινὸν Ἑλλάδος πρόσχημ᾽ ἀγῶνος τὸ Δελφικῶν ἄθλων χάριν 
γιγνόμενον--- ἐς τὸν Δελφικὸν (Ξε Τυθικὸν) ἀθλητικὸν ἀγῶνα. The expression 
πρόσχημ᾽ ἀγῶνος (---κλεινὸς ἀγὼν) Δελφικῶν ἄθλων (=certaminum) χάριν is, 
save for the use of the simpler and commoner χάριν for πρὸς χάριν, 65- 
sentially the same that we find at Azz. 30, where the words θησαυρὸν 
πρὸς χάριν (= χάριν) βορᾶς should be thus joined (as they are by Sir R. 
C. Jebb, though he gives an unduly laboured and partly false explana- 
tion of πρὸς χάριν) and οἰωνοῖς θησαυρὸν πρὸς χάριν βορᾶς understood as 
a paraphrase of the Homeric οἰωνοῖσι Satra—which two words were 
doubtless thus associated in Sophocles’s mind as he commonly 
thought of them, much as we may say and think ofium cum dignitate, 
albeit in Cic. de orat, 1. 1, 1 im otio is linked with cum dignitate by the 
esse that follows the later phrase.’ 

In v. 683 sq. it looks, if the text be sound, as though Sophocles 
had blended ἤσθετ᾽ ἀνδρὸς ὀρθίοις κηρύγμασιν δρόμον προκηρύξαντος and 
ἤσθετ᾽ ὀρθίων κηρυγμάτων ἀνδρὸς δρόμον προκηρύσσοντος (cf. however vv. 
417--410), but there is a more important matter than that in v. 684, 
namely the interpretation of the relative clause οὗ πρώτη κρίσις. 
Nauck understood this to be a restrictive clause, though, of course, 
in the pernicious German fashion that the present writer for one 
would be glad to see banished for ever from Greek and Latin texts, 
he sets a comma before ot. We should then understand δρόμον οὗ 
πρώτη κρίσις AS=Tovrov τὸν δρόμον οὗ πρώτη κρίσις. But this interpre- 
tation of the relative clause practically demands, I venture to think, 
not οὗ πρώτη κρίσις but οὗ πρώτου κρίσις---οὃς πρῶτος (SC. τῶν ἄλλων δρόμων) 
κρίνεται. If, however, we take δρόμον in the sense of ‘running,’ ‘foot- 
racing’ (ποδῶν δρόμον), we can perfectly well understand οὗ πρώτη 
κρίσις aS—=ov κρίσις πρώτη, 7.€. οὗ ἣ κρίσις πρώτη (Ξεπρὸ τῶν ἄλλων 


1It ought to be added here that Hermann Schitz in the Sophokleische Studien, p. 
292, separates Δελφικῶν ἄθλων χάριν from ἐλθὼν but makes χάριν purely substantival 
and appositive to πρόσχημ᾽. This I cannot believe to be right. 


8ο Greek Authors 


κρίσεων) γίγνεται, although it must be admitted that οὗ πρῶτον κρίσις 
would have been clearer. 

We come now to the much and variously discussed v. 685 sq. 
Here I cannot but think that Schiitz’s lucid note in his Sophokleische 
Studien, pp. 292-4, is fatal to Musgrave’s ingenious and palaeograph- 
ically plausible τῇ ᾿φέσει (corrected by Dindorf to τἀφέσει). How- 
ever, there are objections to that conjecture that have not perhaps 
been put forward. (1) δρόμου would, if τἀφέσει be adopted, have to 
be understood as=rod δρόμου; (2) the emphatic position of δρόμου 
would also remain unexplained and, perhaps, unexplainable. The 
only way, it might be urged, in which Musgrave’s conjecture could 
readily be admitted would be by changing δρόμου (δρόμω, δρόμον) into 
δραμὼν. Now the contrast of εἰσῆλθε (v. 685) and ἐξῆλθε (v. 687) 
shews that vv. 686 and 687 must be closely connected with those 
that immediately precede: the full stop after σέβας should be re- 
placed by a point above the line. Furthermore, we want at the head 
of the clause that is begun in v. 685 something to resume and carry 
on the former half of the sentence. This δρόμου will do, if taken in 
the same sense that δρόμον bears in 684 or that the δρόμον bears 
which we understand with εἰσῆλθε in v. 685. Should we not under- 
stand δρόμου τὰ τέρματα to mean ‘the issue of running’ and interpret 
ν. 685 αϑ:εδραμὼν δὲ συμμέτρως τῇ φύσει (Ξετῇ ἱλαμπρότητι τῆς φύσεως 
implied in v. 685) or, more concisely, δραμὼν δὲ λαμπρῶς ἡ Orestes 
was handsome to look at and he ran handsomely. My (and Wolff’s) 
explanation of the passage thus differs from one that is commonly 
given chiefly in the interpretation of ra τέρματα. The main objec- 
tion to this explanation and its fellow is that we must supply αὐτοῦ 
referring to Orestes with τῇ φύσει. 


ON SOPHOCLES’S ELECTRA 683 sq.* 


In the words: 
ὅτ᾽ ἡσθετ᾽ ἀνδρὸς ὀρθίων κηρυγμάτων 
δρόμον προκηρύξαντος κτέ. 

I have already hinted in this Review (xvi. 6)? that, because προ- 
κηρύξαντος is in the aorist, the phrases ἀνδρὸς προκηρύξαντος and ὀρθίων 
κηρυγμάτων (which by the way might well be, as has been suggested 
by Professor van Herwerden, a mistake for ὁ. γηρυμάτων) are in con- 

1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XVII (1903), p. 209.] 

2 [See above, p. 79. ] 








Sophocles 81 


flict ; for ἀνδρὸς προκηρύξαντος seems to be intended to depend on the 
other phrase and such dependence would seem to demand προκήρυσ- 
govros. I believe we have to do with a fairly ancient corruption and 
that what Sophocles wrote is ὀρθίῳ κηρύγματι (or γηρύματι }). The cor- 
ruption would be due to the miswriting, or rather misreading, of 
ὀρθίῳ as ὀρθίων and the subsequent assimilation of the following word 
to that ὀρθίων. 


CRITICAL NOTES ON CERTAIN PASSAGES IN 
SOPHOCLES’S PHILOCTETES.* 


Vv. 43 Sq. ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ᾽πὶ φορβῆς νόστον ἐξελήλυθεν 
ἢ φύλλον εἴ τι νώδυνον κάτοιδέ που. 

The traditional text of v. 43 is quite out of the question, nor does 
any one of the emendations hitherto proposed (so far as they are 
known to me) seem to restore the manus Sophoclea. This was, I 
conjecture, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐπὶ popByNECTIN ἐξεληλυθίς (φορβήν ἐστιν ἐξελη- 
λυθὼς). The ease with which this could corrupt into the traditional 
form needs no comment. 

Vv. 54 sqq. ΝΘ. τί δῆτ᾽ ἄνωγας; OA. τὴν Φιλοκτήτου σε δεῖ 

ψυχὴν ὅπως λόγοισιν ἐκκλέψεις λέγων. 
ὅταν σ᾽ ἐρωτᾷ τίς τε καὶ πόθεν πάρει, 
λέγειν ᾿Αχιλλέως παῖς - τόδ᾽ οὐχὶ κλεπτέον " 

The syntax of these verses as they stand is very dubious. But I do 
not think it is to be helped adequately by changing λέγων to an inf. 
(e. g., σκοπεῖν). A simple solution of the difficulty may, I think, be 
found, if we stick closely to the connection of the speech of Odys- 
seus with that of Neoptolemus, observing also the opening of the 
speech of Odysseus. Neoptolemus says τί δῆτ᾽ ἄνωγας ; “What then 
do you direct?” The natural answer to such a question is an oblique 
form of expression = imperative of oratio recta. This is, of course, 
in the case in question, the infin. Note now that the preceding speech 
of Odysseus, which Neoptolemus does not regard as imperative, has 
the δεῖ construction; and, further, that in v. 57 λέγειν would fall in 
much more naturally as second member of a compound infin. (= im- 
perative in oratio recta) structure. In fine, I would read (adopting 
Gedike’s δόλοισιν for λόγοισιν in v. 55, a conjecture that might 


1[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXIV 
(1893), p. xxxvii.] 


82 Greek Authors 


occur to any one as it had to me independently, and Nauck’s sugges- 
tion ὅταν δ᾽ in ν. 56) as follows: 

τί δῆτ᾽ ἄνωγας ;—rHv Φιλοκτήτου σκοπεῖν 

ψυχὴν ὅπως δόλοισιν ἐκκλέψεις λόγων" 

ὅταν δ᾽ ἐρωτᾷ τίς τε καὶ πόθεν πάρει, 

λέγειν ᾿Αχιλλέως παῖς - τόδ᾽ οὐχὶ κρυπτέον" 
(κρυπτέον Nauck for κλεπτέον). Az. 556 sq., cited by Professor Jebb 
in support of the construction δεῖ ὅπως c. fut. ind., admits of easy 
correction by substituting σκοπεῖν ὅπως foro ὅπως ratposat 
the close of v. 556. 

V. 567. ὡς ταῦτ᾽ ἐπίστω δρώμεν᾽, οὐ μέλλοντ᾽ ἔτι. 

Though this verse is undoubtedly corrupt, it does not appear that 
either Nauck or Blaydes has been successful in his conjecturing,— 
the former reading σὺ for és; the latter, ὡς δρώμεν᾽ ἴσθι ταῦτα, or ταῦτ᾽ 
ἐξεπίστω δρώμεν. The last, however, comes nearest to what Sopho- 
cles séems to have written, viz., εὖ ταῦτ᾽ ἐπίστω δρώμεν᾽ : cf. Electra 616 


εὖ νυν ἐπιστω τῶνδε μ᾽ αἰσχύνην ἔχειν. The corruption may easily have 


arisen from contamination of ἜΣ (568)—such contamination 


being a fruitful source of error in the Sophoclean text; or perhaps 
it may be due to v. 563 ὡς ἐκ Bias xré. 

Vv. 900 sqq. ΦΙ. οὐ δή σε δυσχέρεια τοῦ νοσήματος 

ἔπεισεν ὥστε μή μ᾽ ἄγειν ναύτην ἔτι; 
ΝΘ. ἅπαντα δυσχέρεια, τὴν αὑτοῦ φύσιν 
ὅταν λιπών τις δρᾷ τὰ μὴ προσεικότα. 
ΦΙ. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἔξω τοῦ φυτεύσαντος σύ γε 
δρᾷς οὐδὲ φωνεῖς, ἐσθλὸν ἄνδρ᾽ ἐπωφελῶν. 

A similar case of contamination to that just suggested is to be 
detected, I think, in v. 901, where instead of ναύτην ἔτι we should 
read νεὼς ἔπι. The source of corruption here was AYTOY inv. 
go2, probably aided by NOCHMATOC in v. goo. Again in v. 904 
there has been a somewhat similar degeneration. OYA€N owes its 
origin in part to OYAE in v. 905. But, whatever were the details 
of the process, the original form of the verse I venture to think was 
this : 

ἀλλ᾽ OYZENONTI τοῦ φυτεύσαντος σύ ye 
(= οὐ ξένον τι). 


ξένον Cc. gen. = alienum a c. abl. can be supported by Ο. 7. 219 sq.: 


Sophocles 83 


4 


ἃ “yw ξένος μὲν τοῦ λόγου τοῦδ᾽ ἐξερῶ | ξένος δὲ τοῦ πραχθέντος. It also 
falls in most aptly as a retort to τὰ μὴ προσεικότα in ν. 903. 

V. O17. οἴμοι, τί εἶπας; Valckenaer’s τί μ᾽ εἶπας; is, of course, 
out of the question here. τί γ᾽ εἶπας of B is, as Jebb says “weak.” 
But why may not the phrase τί εἶπας ; (common to-day, as always) 
have taken the place of a less common equivalent? I would sug- 
gest τί φωνεῖς; as in Electra 1349. 

V.QQ1. ὦ μῖσος, οἷα κἀξανευρίσκεις déyerv. 

λέγειν certainly strikes one oddly. Jebb suggests that it should 
be λέγων. That seems hardly likely, however, with KPATWN at the 
close of v. 989 and A€TW at that of 990. Perhaps we should rather 
write €TTH. There are several ways in which A€ETEIN might have 
come into the text. 


AESCHYLUS. 


OF THE PROLOGUE OF THE AGAMEMNON. 


Though many scholars have handled the prologue of the Aga- 
menmon, yet it may, I venture to think, be said without presump- 
tuousness that they have left something still to be done in the 
elucidation and restoration of that small group of verses. It is to 
this task that I now address myself. 

The proper interpretation of the prologue of the Agamemnon is 
far from simple. The right understanding of the character of the 
watcher, as Aeschylus has depicted it in words put in the watcher’s 
mouth, is so bound up with questions about the text that the prob- 
lem, What in general was the watchman meant by the poet to say? 
and the problem, How precisely did the poet make him express the 
thoughts attributed to him? can never be fully separated in any 
proper discussion of this passage. To the way in which Aeschylus, 
in a few masterly strokes, has made the watcher depict his own 
character, Patin has drawn attention in the excellent remark? about 
‘Vesclave d’Eschyle, qui ne prononce que quelques vers et offre 
cependant tout l’intérét d’un caractére dramatique’. I will now run 
the risk of begging certain textual questions and proceed to set 
forth in a few words the character of the watcher and his mental 
attitude in the prologue. 

The man is at once anxious for his master’s return and fearful 
of what may follow upon that return. He is thoroughly loyal to 
Agamemnon, whom he loves (v. 34 sq.); he fears Clytaemnestra 
and Aegisthus and mourns the evils of the house (vv. 14, 36 sq., 
18 sq.). But his virtue is after all but the virtue of the faithful 
slave: his loyalty is alloyed with a regard for his own interests and 
his own comfort. Indeed, so prominent does he make his sense of 
the discomforts and the tediousness of his yearlong task that it 

1 Read before the American Philological Association at Union College, Schenec- 
tady, 9 July, 1902, [and printed in the Classical Review, Vol. XVII (1903), pp. 102- 
105. ] 


2 Patin’s ‘Eschyle’ (in Ztudes sur les tragiques grecs) p. 314, quoted approxi- 
mately in Wecklein’s German edition. | 


; 
Γ 





Aeschylus 85 


would seem that readers of his words have generally been quite 
misled about the tenor of his speech. And this brings us at once 
to a question of the minute interpretation of the text. 

If what has just been said of the state of mind of the watcher is 
true—and there is a begging of the question in my assuming above 
what a careful study of the text has seemed to me surely to yield—, 
if, I say, my analysis of the watcher’s state of mind is just, then the 
μέν in v. I is concessive and its correlative is the δέ in v. 12. The 
man is indeed (μὲν) praying for release from his irksome task by 
the beacon that shall announce his master’s speedy return, but ( δὲ) 
mourns the evil plight of the house and dreads the future. This is 
the sum and substance of that part of the prologue which precedes 
the flare of the beacon on the neighbouring mountain; and this pre- 
lude thus falls into two halves of which the former consists of vv. 
I-II, omitting the spurious v. 7. We will now examine certain 
portions of vv. I-II. 

A very important matter is the proper understanding of καὶ viv 
in v. 8. If we had to guess the general drift of what preceded the 
words καὶ viv φυλάσσω without having vv. 1-6 before us, we should 
certainly say that it must be either ‘I have been doing something 
else than keeping watch for the beacon’, or ‘I have been keeping 
watch for a certain time’. Now we have vv. 1-6 before us, and we 
know that the former alternative is wrong. Where and how is the 
latter alternative expressed? The answer is that it is expressed 
in vv. 4-6. If we follow this line of interpretation, we should, I be- 
lieve, come to see that ἦν in v. 2 has hitherto been wrongly construed 
and that vv. 2-8 are an elaboration of φρουρᾶς érefas μῆκος ἣν φυλάσσω 
λαμπάδος τὸ σύμβολον, the verb φυλάσσω having a double object, an 
effected and an affected. The ultimate construction of ἥν is, then, 
with φυλάσσω, the words κοιμώμενος... δίκην are parenthetical, and vv. 
4-6 are = πεφύλαχα χεῖμα καὶ θέρος. This is revolutionary, but it is, 
after all, only a matter of putting the commas in the right places. 

I may note before taking up v. 12 sqq. that the spurious v. 7 
would never have been inserted, had it been seen, as I venture to 
think it should have been, that the genitive ἄστρων νυκτέρων belongs 


l rods φέροντας... αἰθέρι I take with others to refer to the stars that mark by their 
rising and setting the changes of the seasons. See Wecklein’s note ad Joc. in his 
Aschylos Orestia. 


86 Greek Authors 


-quite as much to τοὺς... δυνάστας as to ὁμήγυριν. Furthermore, it may 
be, as Meineke and van Herwerden have suggested, that ἀνδρόβουλον 
should give place to ἀνδρόλημον. 

In the sentence—or clause—that begins in v. 12 M. Henri Weil’s 
first thoughts seem to me to have been entirely right, so far as vv. 
12 and 16 are concerned. We should regard ὅταν δ᾽ as resumptive 
and should restore ἔχων for ἔχω. We find again that a simple thought 
is elaborated in a rambling fashion (and we must not forget that it 
is a slave that is speaking) to the confusion. of the line by line 
reader. All would have been clear to the audience as Aeschylus’s 
actor rendered the verses. The simple thought is this: εὖτ᾽ ἂν δέ, 
νυκτίπλαγκτον ἔνδροσόν τ᾽ ἔχων | εὐνήν, ἀείδεν ἢ μινύρεσθαι δοκῶ, 
and the fact that these words form two perfect trimeters makes me 
think that they represent very nearly Aeschylus’s first draft on 
which he afterwards improved. The variation εὖτ᾽ av—éray is char- 
acteristic of Greek style—and characteristic, too, in that the second 
synonyme is the commoner word. ὅταν δ᾽, it may be added, resumes 
the whole of εὖτ᾽ ἂν νυκτίπλαγκτον.... εὐνήν and should be followed: by 
a comma. 

In the parenthetical words ὀνείροις... ὕπνῳ I cannot convince 
myself that ἐμήν is not what Aeschylus wrote. V. 1226 (ἐμῷ: φέρειν 
yap χρὴ τὸ δούλιον ζυγόν) is quite strikingly like v. 14, and Eur. Med. 
793 (τἄμ᾽ - οὔτις ἔστιν ὅστις ἐξαιρήσεται) also ἴανοιιΓϑ ἐμήν. In this 
parenthesis it is also to be noted that ἀνθ᾽ ὕπνου in ν. 14 cannot be 
what Aeschylus wrote; but I cannot think that the ἀντίπνους which 
Messrs van Herwerden (E-verc. Cr., p. 96) and Wecklein have pro- 
posed is certainly right. The word was rather, I fancy, ἀντίος, out 
of which and a clumsy explanatory ὕπνου the traditional reading 
could have arisen. 

In v. 16 I fail to see why δοκῶ should not bear its ordinary sense 
of ‘seeming’. ‘Whenever’, says the watcher, ‘anyone that overhears 
me thinks I am trying to keep awake by turning a tune, I am really 
sobbing’. The expression, whether in the Greek or in this free 
rendering, is a perfectly natural one. 

After v. 19, in which I would accept the substitution of δεσποτου- 
μένου for the traditional διαπονουμένου, v. 20 sq. follow rather abruptly. 
But that is not all. At the end of the prologue we find four verses 
(36-39) that have nothing to do with what immediately precedes 


Aeschylus 87 


them, that deal with the dark secrets of the house and that fit per- 
fectly after v. 19. My opinion that vv. 36-39 were placed by 
Aeschylus after v. 19 coincides with that of Professor van Her- 
werden, who in his Emendationes Aeschyleae (Jahrbb. 10° Suppl., 
121 sqq.) writes thus (p. 132): ‘Vss. 36-39 longe aptiorem locum 
nanciscentur, si mecum transposueris statim post vs. 19, ubi custos 
tetigit tristem rerum conditionem. Quo facto et vocabula τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα 
habebunt quo referantur, et laetiora moesta exceperint ad finem 
orationis usque continuata’. I may add here that the Νῦν δ᾽ in v. 20 
forms a sort of reditus ad propositum and brings us around to the 
point of view of v. 1. Dramatically v. 20 sq. prepare the way for 
the appearance of the beacon. 

But there are certain textual questions in vv. 38 and 39 that 
require attention. The looming of fire by night, as Aeschylus dwells 
upon it in this prologue, inevitably calls up the opening of Pindar’s 
first Olympian; and must not Aeschylus himself have had those 
splendid verses in mind when he wrote those that we are now exam- 
ining? Does not also a certain likeness in v. 39 to something else 
in Pindar, that striking phrase φωνᾶντα συνετοῖσιν which seems to have 
taken hold upon the subsequent poets (cf. Euripides’s εὐξύνετον ξυνετοῖσι 
βοάν I.T. 1092), does not this likeness also suggest that Pindar was 
running in Aeschylus’s mind? Indeed, I believe that v. 39 in its 
original form had far greater likeness to the Pindaric phrase than 
it has in the traditional form. There is difficulty in construing 
vv. 38 and 39, as they stand. λήθομαι, of course with ἑκὼν, means 
‘forget on purpose’ and need give us no trouble; but where is its 
object, and what are we to do with αὐδῶ and the following καὶ where 
we do not want a finite form at all, but a participle or equivalent? 
The Pindaric phrase helps us out in part, and I would write 
ὧν ἑκὼν ἐγώ, μαθοῦσιν αὐδῇς, οὐ μαθοῦσι λήθομαι. There is a somewhat 
similar corruption to that assumed in αὐδῶ κοὐ in v. 1244, where for 
κλύοντ᾽ ἀληθῶς, οὐδὲν ἐξῃκασμένα we should read κλύοντ᾽ ἀληθῆ κοὐδὲν 
ἐξῃκασμένα." 

Of the remainder of the ΤΥΒΈΝΕ I have less to say. I would 
accept Hermann’s transpositions of Ἰοὺ ἰού, would take συμφορᾶς 
in v. 20 as ‘coincidence’ (τῆσδε συμφορᾶς χάριν must then go with 


1 This correction has been anticipated by Professor van Herwerden (Zxercitationes 
Criticae, p. 99). 


88 Greek Authors 


χαῖρε), would read σημανῶ in v. 26, would take δόμοις in v. 27 as loca- 
tive and construe τῇδε λαμπάδι in ν. 28 with ἐπορθιάζειν, and I would 
understand θήσομαι in v. 32 as a poetic equivalent of ποιήσομαι in the 
sense of ἡγήσομαι. Furthermore, I would understand δεσποτῶν (ν. 
32) as referring to Agamemnon and Clytaemnestra’* and the words 
τὰ δεσποτῶν εὖ πεσόντα as --οτὰ τῶν δεσποτῶν εὐτυχῆ. Lastly, the con- 
trast with δεσποτῶν demands that we write in v. 33 not τῇσδέ μοι but 
τῆσδ᾽ ἐμοί: 

I have appended the continuous text of the prologue, as I would 
write it, and have added a close translation, which will be found to 
fill some small gaps in the commentary above. 


[ Note.—The prologue possibly occupied one page of a MS. that 
had 38 or 39 lines to the page, and vv. 36-39 were added by the 
scribe that first omitted them, when he discovered his blunder, at 
the foot of the page. For evidence of the existence of MSS. of the 
Tragedians with 39 lines to the page see Hayley on Eur. Alc. 312.] 

Θεοὺς μὲν αἰτῶ τῶνδ᾽ ἀπαλλαγὴν πόνων 
φρουρᾶς ἐτείας μῆκος ἥν, κοιμώμενος 
στέγαις ᾿Ατρειδῶν ἄγκαθεν κυνὸς δίκην, 
ἄστρων κάτοιδα νυκτέρων ὁμήγυριν 

καὶ τοὺς φέροντας χεῖμα καὶ θέρος βροτοῖς 
λαμπροὺς δυνάστας ἐμπρέποντας αἰθέρι 
καὶ νῦν φυλάσσω λαμπάδος τὸ σύμβολον, 
αὐγὴν πυρὸς φέρουσαν ἐκ Τροίας φάτιν 
ἁλώσιμόν τε βάξιν - ὧδε γὰρ κρατεῖ 10 
γυναικὸς ἀνδρόβουλον ἐλπίζον κέαρ - 

εὖτ᾽ ἂν δέ, νυκτίπλαγκτον ἔνδροσόν τ᾽ ἔχω« ν» 


~woanmn 


εὐνήν---ὀνείροις οὐκ ἐπισκοπουμένην 

> , , ‘ > 7 - 

ἐμήν: φόβος yap ἀντίος παραστατεῖ 

τὸ μὴ βεβαίως βλέφαρα συμβαλεῖν ὕπνῳ--- 15 
ὅταν δ᾽, ἀείδειν ἢ μινύρεσθαι δοκῶ 

φ 7Ὸ» » , > ΄ » 

ὕπνου τόδ᾽ ἀντίμολπον ἐντέμνων ἄκος, 

κλαίω τότ᾽ οἴκου τοῦδε συμφορὰν στένων 


ovx, ὡς τὰ πρόσθ᾽, ἄριστα δεσποτουμένου--- 19 


1 Of course, the reference is specially to Agamemnon, and Clytaemnestra can only 
be included by a specious optimism on the speaker’s part, as though the evils he be- 
wails in the present and dreads in the future were not there. His real thought 
appears in the δ᾽ οὖν of v. 34. 





Aeschylus 89 


τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα σιγῶ - βοῦς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ μέγας 36 
βέβηκεν - οἶκος δ᾽ αὐτός, εἰ φθογγὴν λάβοι, 37 
σαφέστατ᾽ ἂν λέξειεν dv ἑκὼν ἐγώ, : 38 
μαθοῦσιν αὐδῇς, οὐ μαθοῦσι λήθομαι. 39 
Νῦν δ᾽ εὐτυχὴς γένοιτ᾽ ἀπαλλαγὴ πόνων 20 
εὐαγγέλου φανέντος ὀρφναίου πυρός. 21 
Tov, ἰού’ 25 
ὦ χαῖρε, λαμπτὴρ νυκτὸς ἡμερήσιον 22 
φάος πιφαύσκων καὶ χορῶν κατάστασιν 

πολλῶν ἐν "Apye, τῆσδε συμφορᾶς χάριν. 24 
᾿Αγαμέμνονος γυναικὶ σημανῶ τορῶς 26 


εὐνῆς ἐπαντείλασαν ὡς τάχος δόμοις 

ὀλολυγμὸν εὐφημοῦντα τῇδε λαμπάδι 

ἐπορθιάζειν, εἴπερ Ἰλίου πόλις 

ἑάλωκεν, ὡς ὃ φρυκτὸς ἀγγέλλων πρέπει " 30 
αὐτός T ἔγωγε φροίμιον χορεύσομαι " 

τὰ δεσποτῶν γὰρ εὖ πεσόντα θήσομαι 

τρὶς ἐξ βαλούσης τῆσδ᾽ ἐμοὶ ppvxtwpias. 

Γένοιτο δ᾽ οὖν μολόντος εὐφιλῆ χέρα 

ἄνακτος οἴκων τῇδε βαστάσαι χερί. 35 


2-3 Sensui interpunctionem accommodavi. : 

4 Virgulam post ὁμήγυριν vulgo positam omisi, qui δυνάστας quoque cum ἄστρων 
iungendum esse censeam. ; 

6 Virgulam sive gravius punctum’ post αἰθέρι omisi, quia simplex sententia est ἢν 
φυλάσσω. ᾽ 

12 Post δέ virgulam inserui ; ἔχων scripsi sicut olim Weil. 

13 et 15 Verba quaedam a oii διὰ μέσου iniecta lineis indicavi. 

14 ἀντίος scripsi viam monstrante Weckleino, qui ἀντίπνους imprimendum curavit- 
Idem iam proposuerat van Herwerden. 

19 δεσποτουμένου pro διαπονουμένου praeeuntibus aliis cum Duebnero restitui. 

Versus 36-39 huc reduxi. Idem iam fecerat van Herwerden. 

39 Ratione habita et loci sententiae et uncialis litterarum ductus et Pindarici illius 
φωνᾶντα (quod sic scribendum esse censeo) συνετοῖσιν restituere conatus sum Aeschy- 
leam manum. Cf. Ag. 1244, ubi pro dAnOWC οὐδὲν scribendum erat d\n@H K οὐδὲν. 

25 In sedem suam reposui cum Hermanno. 

26 Deteriorum librorum σημανῶ Medicei illi σημαίνω cum Weckleino praetuli, 

33 τῆσδ᾽ ἐμοὶ pro librorum τῆσδέ μοι reposui. 


The gods, it is true, I am asking for release from those toils of 
a watch a year in length which, couching on the roofs of the 
Atridae upon elbow dogwise, I have learned full well the night stars’ 
rank and file <in> and those bright lords ¢<of theirs> , looming in 


go Greek Authors 


the aether, that bring winter and summer to mortals, and now am 
keeping for that token of a torch, a gleam of fire that shall bring 
out of Troy speech and talk of capture; for thereto constrains 
<me> a woman’s man-minded expectant heart: whensoe’er, though, 
occupying a night-buffeted and dewy couch— <a couch> by 
dreams unvisited in my case; for fear is at {ΠΥ side preventing 
my closing my eyelids tight in sleep—, whenever, I say, <occupying 
such a couch> , I am thought to be singing or humming, using that 
as a charm against sleep, I am <really> at such times weeping, 
mourning this house’s misfortune, which is not, as once, most fitly 
governed—but I say no more; an ox upon my tongue stands heavy; 
but the house for itself, could it receive <the gift of> speech, would 
tell most clearly what I, of my own will, though voiceful to them 
that know, to them that know not forget. Now, however, may a 
fortunate release from toils come by the appearing of the fire of 
good news through the murk of night. Hurrah! hurrah! ah! wel- 
come, thou beamer that by night daylight dost shew and <dost 
betoken> the holding of dances many in Argos, <welcome> for that 
thou comest upon the heels of my word! To Agamemnon’s wife 
I'll signal clear that rising starlike’ from her couch with all speed 
she shrill a cry of worshipful welcome over this torch, if indeed 
Troy-town is taken, as the beacon looms its message; and for myself 
I'll dance a prelude <to the public dances> ; for my master’s game 
ΤΊ] count a winning one now that this beacon-watch has thrown me 
treble six. But, <whether a winning game or not>, may it be 
<mine> , when he comes home again, to lift the well-beloved hand 
of the lord of the house with this hand of mine. 


NOTE ON AESCHYLUS PROMETHEUS 629? 
μή μου προκήδου μᾶσσον ws ἐμοί γλυκύ. 

It seems a pity that the latest editors still cling to this reading. 
It stands in both the annotated edition of the Prometheus of 
Messrs. Sikes and Willson (1898) and the Parnassus Library 
text of Professor Campbell (1898). Professor Campbell puts 
Elmsley’s μασσόνως ἢ ‘wot at the foot of the page, and Messrs Sikes 

1*Der Wachter ist noch ganz eingenommen von der Beobachtung der Sterne.’ 


(Wecklein.) 
2 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 20.] 








Aeschylus gI 


and Willson say of the same conjecture: ‘Were emendation neces- 
sary, this would be good.’ Though the latter editors have examined 
Dr Wecklein’s large Greek edition, they do not seem to realize that 
he has practically given up his former view of the construction in 
question. His Greek note is decidedly curious—to say the least. 
After reproducing the note of the German edition he continues: 
᾿Αλλὰ τὰ χωρία ταῦτα εἶναι τὰ μὲν ἑτέρας φύδεως, τὰ δὲ ἀμφισβητουμένης 
γραφῆς. ᾿Ἐὰν δὲ ὡς παρεδόθη ὀρθῶς, ὅπερ φαίνεται βέβαιον, δὲν κεῖται ἀντὶ 
τοῦ ἤ. Φαίνεται δὲ πιθανώτερον, ὅτι ἐλλείπει ἐνταῦθα τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ συγκρι- 
τικοῦ καὶ τοῦ κώλου τῆς συγκρίσεως ὑπάρχον ἤ(πρβ. Πλάτ. ἸΤολιτ. σελ. 410 D 
μαλακώτεροι ἢ ὡς κάλλιον αὐτοῖς) καὶ ἡ ἔννοια εἶναι : ὡς ἐμοὶ ἀρεστόν ἐστι, μή 
φρόντιζε πλέον περὶ ἐμοῦ. Πρβ. Ep. Ἵππ. 530 οὔτε γὰρ πυρὸς οὔτ᾽ ἄστρων 
ὑπέρτερον βέλος οἷον τὸ τᾶς ᾿Αφροδίτας inow ἐκ χερῶν Ἔρως καὶ ᾿Αλκ. 879 
τί γὰρ ἀνδρὶ κακὸν μεῖζον ἁμαρτεῖν πιστῆς ἀλόχου If it is probable that 
ἢ is left out here between the terms of the comparison, then it 
should be put in and μᾶσσον ἢ ὡς be restored. ὡς ἐμοὶ ἀρεστόν ἐστι, μὴ 
φρόντιζε πλέον περὶ ἐμοῦ does not represent a case of omission of the 
particle of comparison, but means ‘since it is my pleasure, do not 
take thought about me further.’ Of course, the passage cited from 
Plato has nothing to do with such an interpretation ; but it is ex- 
cellent as a support for the reading μᾶσσον ἢ ὡς. As for the two 
passages cited from Euripides at the end of the note, that from the 
Alcestis was probably rightly explained by Hermann, as I now think 
with Mr Hayley (see his excellent note on Alc. 879-80). The pas- 
sage from the A7/folytus is in all likelihood to be corrected by insert- 
ing ἢ before οἷον. The copyists quite commonly fumbled ἢ ὡς (and 
the like: so particularly μὴ od). A good example is to be found in 
Hippocrates περὶ διαίτης ὀξέων 2, where the MSS. vary between the 
right reading ἑτεροίως γινώσκω ἢ ὡς κεῖνοι ἐπεξήεσαν and γινώσκω ὡς (see 
Kuehlewein’s critical note ad. /oc.). In Xen. Hellen. 2. 3, 16 ἧττόν 
τι οἴει (οἴῃ) ὥσπερ is a mistake for... ὥσπερ, as I have elsewhere 
noted. One is surprised to find Solon’s κέντρον δ᾽ ἄλλος ὡς ἐγὼ λαβὼν 
figuring in Messrs Sikes and Willson’s note on the Prometheus as — 
an example of ὡς -οἤ. Does not Aristotle ’A@. πολ. 12 paraphrase 

Solon’s words by «i γάρ τις ἄλλος ταύτης τῆς τιμῆς ἔτυχεν’ This cita- 
tion the editors just named seem to owe to Mr Adam (on Plat. “42οἱ. 
36 D). Mr Adam believes (or believed) that és could be used for ἢ 
after a comparative. But the best example he adduces, Plat. 2. 
526 C, is due to carelessness on Plato’s part owing to the wide separa- 


92 Greek Authors 


tion of μείζω πόνον from the second term of the comparison, which 
ought, of course, to be ἢ ὅσον τοῦτο or ἢ τοῦτο, but appears in the 
form ὡς τοῦτο, as though οὕτω μέγαν πόνον had gone before. After 
all’s said and done, it would seem that Dr Thompson’s dictum that 
‘the use of ὡς for ἤ after a comparative is a barbarism’ must stand. 
When shall we see μή pov προκήδου μᾶσσον ἢ ὡς ἐμοὶ γλυκύ Come into 
its own ἢ 


ae πὰ φως Ὁ. 


ee a ee ὩΣ 


aia 


EURIPIDES. 
NOTES ON EURIPIDES’S ALCESTIS.* 
Vv. 282-289. 


ἐγὼ σὲ πρεσβεύουσα κἀντὶ τῆς ἐμῆς 
ψυχῆς καταστήσασα φῶς τόδ᾽ εἰσορᾶν 
θνῇῆσκω, παρόν μοι μὴ θανεῖν ὑπὲρ σέθεν 
ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρα τε σχεῖν Θεσσαλῶν ὃν ἤθελον 
καὶ δῶμα ναίειν ὄλβιον τυραννίδι 

οὐκ ἠθέλησα ζῆν ἀποσπασθεῖσα σοῦ 

ξὺν παισὶν ὀρφανοῖσιν οὐδ᾽ ἐφεισάμην, 
ἥβης ἔχουσα δῶρ᾽, ἐν οἷς ἐτερπόμην. 

The difficulty in this passage begins with v. 285. It will not do 
to supply, with Monk, παρόν μοι from v. 284, or, with Hermann, to 
make ἀλλ᾽ connect only the infinitives. Lenting’s κοὐκ for οὐκ in v. 
287 and Kirchhoff’s οὐδ᾽ in the same place do not satisfy; nor has M. 
Weil helped the passage by writing in v. 284 @vyoxw- παρὸν δὲ xré. 
In order satisfactorily to treat this difficult passage we must begin 
with v. 284. (Perhaps I should have said that the difficulty, though 
not the obvious one, begins here.) It is certainly far more natural 
to take ὑπὲρ σέθεν with θνήσκω than with θανεῖν : that every reader of 
the verse must feel. But if we read in that way, we shall begin a 
new construction with ἀλλ. The one word that interferes with ἀλλ᾽ 
ἄνδρα κτὲ. aS a new sentence is the infinitive ζῆν in v. 287; and here, 
I believe, we have found the ἕλκος. Substitute for ζῆν the participle 

ὥσ᾽ (cf. v. 695 fis παρελθὼν and Xen. Anad. 2. 6, 29 ζῶν αἰκισθεὶς) and 
all is right. 
θνήσκω, παρόν μοι μὴ θανεῖν, ὑπὲρ σέθεν. 
ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρα τε σχεῖν Θεσσαλῶν ὃν ἤθελον 
καὶ δῶμα ναίειν ὄλβιον τυραννίδι 
οὐκ ἠθέλησα ζῶσ᾽ ἀποσπασθεῖσά σου 
ξὺν παισὶν ὀρφανοῖσιν κτξ, 
Vv. 291 sq. 
καλῶς μὲν αὐτοῖς κατθανεῖν ἧκον βίου, 
καλῶς δὲ σῶσαι παῖδα κεὐκλεῶς θανεῖν - 


1[From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), pp. 374-376.] 


94 Greek Authors 


V. 292 is objectionable in its traditional form by reason of the 
repetitious θανεῖν. This is best got rid of by accepting Wakefield’s 
φθίνειν (cf. Wecklein’s emendation in v. 25). But there is another 
word that seems quite as clearly wrong, and that is κεὐκλεῶς. Read 
the adjective for the adverb—xevxrecis. 


Vv. 320-322. 
δεῖ yap θανεῖν με - καὶ τόδ᾽ οὐκ ἐς αὔριον 
οὐδ᾽ ἐς τρίτην μοι μηνὸς ἔρχεται κακόν, 
ἀλλ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μηκέτ᾽ οὖσι λέξομαι. ᾿ 
Though I cannot feel with Mr Hayley (Amer. Journal of Philol- 
ogy, Xvi. i. p. 103) that v. 321 is right as it stands, I am becoming 
less and less disposed to regard it as a probable or possible interpo- 
lation. The simplest treatment of this crux criticorum seems to be 
the changing of a single letter so as to read 


> > ’ ‘ > , / 
οὐδ᾽ ες TPLTYV μοι μὴν ETEPXETAL κακον. 


This had been suggested also by Johann Kvicala (Studien gu Euri- 
pides, ii. p. 11), although (with a perverseness sadly characteristic 
of this scholar) he proposes as “das wahrscheinlichste” 

οὐδ᾽ ἐς τρίτην μοι μέλλον ἔρχεται κακόν. 


For the μὴν in this position in the verse may be compared M. Weil’s 
excellent restoration of v. 487 (ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀπειπεῖν μὴν πόνους οἷόν τ᾽ ἐμοί) 
and his note thereon. 

[Since this note was written, I have received, through the courtesy 
of the author, Mr Hayley’s Varia Critica (Harvard Studies in 
Classical Philology, vol. vii.), at the close of which he resumes the 
discussion of this passage. From this it appears that he is now 
disposed to regard μηνὸς as unsound. For it he suggests vyAés.] 

Vv. 360-362. 

κατῆλθον av, καί μ᾽ οὔθ᾽ ὃ Πλούτωνος κύων 
οὔθ᾽ οὑπὶ κώπῃ ψυχοπομπὸς ἂν γέρων 
ἔσχεν, πρὶν ἐς φῶς σὸν καταστῆσαι Biov. 

The word γέρων in v. 361 is due to the acuteness of Cobet (Var. 
Lectt.2 p. 581). It is accepted, as I am glad to see, by M. Weil 
(whose excellent edition of the Alcestis, 1 may add, did not come 
into my hands until the printing of my own text was so far advanced 
that I was unable to adopt several admirable corrections of his). 








Euripides 95 


Cobet in the same place suggested that βίον in v. 362 was a gloss on 
φῶς that had ousted the original final word of the verse. This word, 
he suggested, was δέμας. The same conjecture was made by Nauck. 
Not satisfied with this I have kept the vulgate. M. Weil had done 
the same. I am inclined, however, to believe that Cobet’s account 
of the origin of Biov is right. The key to the emendation of v. 362 
appears to be given by J. T. 981 Sq. καὶ σὲ πολυκώπῳ σκάφει | στείλας 
Μυκήναις ἐγκαταστήσω πάλιν. Read in the Alcestis 


πρὶν és φῶς σ᾽ ἐγκαταστῆσαι <mdédw>. 


Vv. 1118-1120. 
ΑΔ. καὶ δὴ προτείνω. HP. Γοργόν᾽ ὡς καρατομῶν. 
ἔχεις; ΑΔ, ἔχω. HP. vai, σῴζε νῦν καὶ τὸν Διὸς 
φήσεις πότ᾽ εἶναι παῖδα γενναῖον ξένον. 


To Μ. Weil is due the admirable division of v. 1118 that I have 
here followed; but the same scholar is not equally successful in his 
treatment of v. 1119, where he would read AA. ἔχω wv. HP. σῴζένυν, 
καὶ κτέ. It seems unnecessary to change the traditional ναί, Why 
should νιν have given way to it? Monk seems to have been right in 
giving ναί to Admetus. Hermann pithily says: “Recte vai Monkius 
Herculi dedit: male autem scripsit vv” [for viv]. A careful study 
of the passage seems furthermore to demand that we read the 
words after σῷζε as they are printed in Hermann’s Monk’s Alcestis 
(Leipsic 1824) and are reproduced above. The viv and πότ᾽ are con- 
trasted: ‘keep now and you will say some time’, etc. 

We. ΎΤΑΣ. 

AA. Oyo, προσείπω ζῶσαν ὡς δάμαρτ᾽ ἐμήν ; 

The ὡς is certainly awkward. Paley construed it with ζῶσαν “i.e. 
not as a mere φάσμα νερτέρων." But the following words are awk- 
wardly definite. I have suggested an ἀπὸ κοινοῦ construction with 
both ζῶσαν and δάμαρτ᾽ ἐμήν. But this is awkward. M. Weil in his 
critical note to v. 1129 quotes Mekler’s εἰσορῶ ξυνάορον for εἰσορῶ δάμαρτ᾽ 
ἐμήν and in his explanatory note on the same verse asks: “ Le poéte 
aurait-il répété ces mots au vers 1131?” The doubt isa fair one ; but 
the difficulty in v. 1131 should prompt us to emend there rather than 
in v. 1129, the close of which seems quite natural as a repetition of 
that of v. 1126 (δρᾷς δάμαρτα σήν). Med. 1350 (ἕξω προσειπεῖν ζῶντας) 
points toaseparation of és from ζῶσαν (so too does the position of és), 


96 Greek Authors 


and A/c. 1124 may perhaps supply what we need. We may compare too 
Soph. 22. 1452 ἢ καὶ θανόντ᾽ ἤγγειλαν ὡς ἐτητύμως ; Certainly the reading 
θίγω, προσείπω ζῶσαν ὡς <éryntipws> ; might easily have been corrupted 
to the traditional form by the gloss δάμαρτ᾽ ἐμήν added to ἐτητύμως. 
V. 1134. 
ἔχω σ᾽ ἀέλπτως, οὕποτ᾽ ὄψεσθαι δοκῶν ; 
(best read as a question in view of Heracles’s answer) should 
perhaps be corrected by writing οὐκέτ᾽ for οὔποτ᾽. The same correction 
was suggested—not improbably—by Musgrave.in v. 876. 
V. 1143 seems to need a slight correction. Thus: 
τί yap ποθ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἄναυδος ἕστηκεν γυνή; 





The importance of the readings of Codex Parisinus 2713 (a) in 
several passages of the Alcestis needs to be emphasized. Kirch- 
hoff’s judgment of this MS. was certainly unfair. 

Vv. 433-4- 

ἀξιά δέ μοι 
τιμᾶν, ἐπεὶ τέθνηκεν ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ, λίαν. 

The reading of a punctuated thus gives excellent sense and em- 
phasis. (I may add that a spells τέθνῃκεν.) Kvitala (Studien 2u Eur. 
ii. p. 12) saw the value of a’s λίαν but thought it in the wrong place. 
His suggested emendation (déia δέ μοι | τιμῶν (oder nach S. τιμῆς λίαν, 
ἐπεὶ τέθνηκεν ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ) is, of course, valueless. Nauck’s ἐπεὶ τέτληκεν 
ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ θανεῖν, which I, rather rashly, adopted, is better than 
Usener’s ἐπεί γ᾽ ἔθνῃσκεν ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ μόνη, Which M. Weil accepts. 

In v. 546 it is perhaps unnecessary to call attention to a’s τῶδε, 
which (in the form τῷδε) has won general acceptation, except in 
proof of the independent value of a. 

In v. 811. a’s reading 

ἢ κάρτα μέντοι καὶ λίαν θυραῖος ἦν 
(for the verification of which I am indebted to the courtesy of M. 
Henri Omont of the Bibliothéque Nationale) has been undervalued 
or disregarded since Kirchhoff’s great edition. It is supported by 
ὀθνείου in v. 810 and, more clearly, by θυραίων in 814. (1 still main- 
tain the integrity of the traditional arrangement of vv. 809-815.) A 
misunderstanding of the irony of v. 811 with a’s reading might well 
have led to οἰκεῖος. θυραῖος (which appears only in a of the MSS. | 


ον, πο ee πο _— ve 


Euripides 97 


recognized by Prinz but is found also in inferior MSS.) was printed 
by Lascaris and accepted by Matthiae and Hermann, though persist- 
ently rejected by Monk. Paley accepted it in his first edition but 
changed to οἰκεῖος in his second. Mr Way in his translation accepts 
θυραῖος (“Ὁ yea, an alien she—o’ermuch an alien!”). Mr Verrall 
(Euripides the Rationalist, p. 52 note) says: “The reading λίαν 
θυραῖος is clearly right: λίαν οἰκεῖος, the facile but pointless variant, 
is merely an unintelligent gloss.” 

A higher estimate of the value of a’s readings may well lead us 
to accept v. 1055 in the form 

ἢ τῆς θανούσης θάλαμον εἰσβήσας τρέφω ; 

In v. 1140 δαιμόνων τῷ κυρίῳ should probably be accepted with 
Matthiae, Hermann, Kvicala (Studien zu Eur. ii. p. 38), Weil and 
Verrall (Euripides the Rationalist, p. 68 note). The variant is a 
guess like οἰκεῖος in ν. 811. Kvicala interprets rightly “der ent- 
scheidende daiuwv”—“jener, mit dem es eben Herakles aufnehmen 
musste.” 

Other readings in the Alcestis that appear to be rightly supported 
by a (not to mention the obvious αὐτὴ in v. 37 and πάσῃ of v. 1154) 
are the following: 

V. 45. . 

χθονὸς κάτω. 
V. 1049. : 
γυνὴ νέα (on account of the νέα γάρ of v. 1050). 
V. 1117. 
ToApa* mporewe χεῖρα καὶ θίγε ξένης. 


NOTE ON EURIPIDES’S ALCESTIS. 207-208.* 
ὡς οὔποτ᾽ αὖθις, ἀλλὰ νῦν πανύστατον 
ἀκτῖνα κύκλον θ᾽ ἡλίου προσόψεται. 

If we keep v. 207 and reject v. 208, as I have proposed (and as 
had been proposed by Lachmann, De Mensura Tragoediarum, p. 44) 
it would look as if Alc. 207 were reminiscent of Ajax 858. Is Anti- 
gone 807-8 reminiscent of Alc. 207 or vice versa? If the former, the 
Alcestis might fall between Ajax and Antigone. This is the view 
I have suggested in my introduction to the Alcestis, p. xxx. 


1[Ms. note. ] 


98 Greek Authors 


NOTE-ON BURIPIDES, ALCESTIS sox? 


Heracles, newly arrived at Pherae, converses with the Coryphaeus 
and is more nearly informed of the nature of his quest in Thrace. 
When told at length that the master of the man-eating horses is a 
son of Ares he says: 

καὶ τόνδε τοὐμοῦ δαίμονος πόνον λέγεις * 
σκληρὸς (f. στερρὸς : cf. Androm. 98 et schol. ad 
loc.) yap αἰεὶ καὶ πρὸς αἶπος ἔρχεται ' 500 
εἰ χρή με παισὶν ols ΓΑρης ἐγείνατο 
μάχην ξυνάψαι πρῶτα μὲν Λυκάονι, 
αὖθις δὲ Κύκνῳ, τόνδε δ᾽ ἔρχομαι τρίτον 
ἀγῶνα πώλοις δεσπότῃ τε συμβαλῶν - 
ἀλλ᾽ οὔτις ἔστιν ὃς τὸν ᾿Αλκμήνης γόνον 505 
τρέσαντα χεῖρα πολεμίαν ποτ᾽ ὄψεται. 

I have been at some pains to punctuate this passage accurately. 
It is a single sentence. V. 499 is parenthetic and might, therefore, 
be set off by dashes as well as by the point above the line. The gist 
of the sentence may be given briefly thus: ‘Just my luck—always 
hard—to fight with another son of Ares after fighting with two! 
But I'll never turn my back on a foe.’ I emphasise the fact that 
Heracles’s speech is a single sentence, because I conceive that it is 
the vicious modern tendency to curtail the comprehensive ancient 
sentence and to fail to grasp it as a whole that has led here, as too 
often in the Classics, to a serious misconception of the author’s 
meaning. To this misconception we owe it that the word παισὶν 
in v. 501 has been called in question. Gilbert Wakefield in his 
Tragoediarum Delectus (London 1794) was, so far as I know, the 
first of the would-be correctors of this word. He printed in his 
text zaow, annotating thus: ‘Erectiorem feci sententiam et loquentis 
menti accomodatiorem, restituendo ex divinatione propra (sic) 
πασιν pro inerti atque inutili dictione raow: et quisnam adversabitur ?” 
G. A. Wagner in his edition of the Alcestis (Leipsic 1800) objected 
to Wakefield’s ‘restitution’, but without giving an adequate reason 
for his objection and—apparently—without fully understanding the 
passage. Monk merely notes ‘réow pro παισὶν edidit Wakefield.’ In 
our time, in which peace has not been given to this passage, at least 


1[Read before the American Philological Association at Hartford, Conn., 6 July 
1898, [and printed in the Classica] Review, Vol. XII (1898), pp. 393-394]. 





—_- 


Euripides ; 99 


two editors of the Alcestis have hit upon the same conjecture as 
Wakefield. In Dr Wecklein’s edition of Wolfg. Bauer’s Alkestis 
(Munich 1888) πᾶσιν is printed and credited apparently to himself 
by Dr Wecklein. Again Mr W. S. Hadley in his edition of the 
Alcestis (Cambridge 1896) prints πᾶσιν with the explanatory note: 
“πᾶσιν, a natural exaggeration,’ and the critical note: ‘For the MSS. 
παισὶν [ have read πᾶσιν ; cf. n. in commentary; the enumeration of 
first, second and third makes the exaggeration natural: παισὶν seems 
pointless.’ (Cf. also Class. Rev. xii. pp. 118-119.) By the rough 
rendering I have given above of this passage, as well as by my 
preliminary remarks upon it, I have already sought to indicate the 
arguments against this persistent conjecture. Heracles complains 
not of fighting with all Ares’s sons, but of fighting with another, a 
third son of Ares. In a clearer and more prosaic form the sense 
of vv. 501-504 might be reproduced thus: εἰ χρή pe τῷδε τρίτῳ wad 
"Apeos μάχην ξυνάψαι Sis ἤδη παισὶν "Apeos μάχην ξυνάψαντα πρῶτα---Κύκνῳ. 
The reading παισὶν brings δεσπότῃ in v. 504 among the ‘sons that 
Ares begat’; the conjecture πᾶσιν puts Lycaon and Cycnus among 
them ‘that Ares begat,’ but places the ‘master of the foals’ in another 
category. If we try to reduce the proposed text to a more prosaic 
form we shall get something like this: εἰ χρή με πᾶσιν ods (ὅσους) [Ἄρης 
ἐγείνατο μάχην ξυνάψαντα, πρῶτα --Κύκνῳ, τόνδ᾽ ἔρχεσθαι xré. This reduc- 
tion to prose is certainly a reductio ad absurdum. I do not, however, 
venture to hope that I shall have been able to banish this 
pestilent critical heresy for ever. 

I may add that this passage gives me another occasion to note 
what I have noted by implication elsewhere (Class. Rev. ix. 202)’, 
that a translator may succeed when the commentators fail. Mr Way 
does tolerable justice to the passage just discussed thus: 


‘Thou say’st: such toil my fate imposeth still, 
Harsh evermore, uphillward straining aye, 

If I must still in battle close with sons 

Gotten of Arés; with Lycaon first, 

And Kyknus then: and lo, I come to grapple— 
The third strife this—with yon steeds and their lord. 
But never man shall see Alkméné’s child 

Quailing before the hand of any foe.’ 


1 [See above, p. 33-] 


100 Greek Authors 


It may be added to what has been already said about this pas- 
sage—and perhaps the addition will put the case in even clearer 
light—that if Euripides had chosen to write παίδων, instead of παισὶν, 
there would have been no possible ground for emendation. The 
regimen of ξυνάψαι before his mind and the consciousness that he 
was expressing himself somewhat indirectly caused him, I conceive, 
to prefer the dative. If we translate as though παιδὼν were written— 
and in v. 504 πώλων δεσπότῃ---, we shall gain a clear understanding 
from another point of view of the difficulties of this passage and the 
reasons why editors have blundered. 

It may be noted in conclusion that M. Henri Weil in his edition 
of the Alcestis says nothing of the conjecture πᾶσιν. : 


ON ALCESTIS’S ἐπίσκηψις, EURIPIDES, ALCESTIS 280-325. 


Vv. 287-289 of the Alcestis are unconnected with what immedi- 
ately precedes them. Lenting saw this clearly, and in his Epistola- 
Critica in Euripidis Alcestin, Zutphen, 1821, he wrote thus (p. 54): 
‘Hic locus mihi videtur laborare ἀνακολουθίᾳ sententiae. Vel sic inter 
pungam, 

ὑπὲρ σέθεν - 

ἀλλ᾽ ; 
sks . τυραννίδι, 

οὐκ ἡ. 
ut ad ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρα τε σχεῖν repetatur παρόν" vel legam κοὐκ pro οὐκ in vs, 
288’. The late Mr Hayley lapsed from his customary acumen when he 
wrote his brief note on v. 287. In this Review (x [1896], 374)’ I too 
have tried by means of punctuation and emendation to connect vv. 
287-289 with the preceding verses. But now, as the result of repeated 
study of this passage, I see clearly that vv. 287-289 should simply 
be removed from the text. This J. Heiland is said to have seen 
(cf. Hayley and Wecklein), but I do not know where he published 
his remarks. It should be quite plain, I am now convinced, that 
vv. 287-289 are the work of some one that found Alcestis’s words 
in v. 285 sq. too cold and calculating in tone. That is to say, the 
three verses in question are merely a sentimental substitute for 
vv. 284-286. The ‘some one’ may very well have been an actor. 
I would add here that in v. 288 sq. we should point thus: οὐδ᾽ ἐφεισά- 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XVIII (1904), p. 336.] 
3 [See above, p. 93.] 





Euripides IOI 


μην | ἥβης, ἔχουσα dap’ ἐν οἷς ἐτερπόμην - and that we should compare 
with v. 289 Soph. £7. 360. 

Further on in this same speech is a very well known and very 
palpable interpolation in v. 312. Hayley’s note should be consulted 
here about the way in which the verse was possibly introduced into 
the text. 

At v. 319 I believe we may perhaps again trace the hand of the 
author of vv. 287-289. At any rate, v. 319 seems to be a sentimental 
addition to Euripides’s text. According to Wecklein’s Appendix I 
have been forestalled in the condemnation of v. 319; for the author 
notes: “319 sq. delet Wheeler.’ But an examination of J. H. 


_ Wheeler’s dissertation De Alcestidis et Hippolyti Euripidearum 


interpolationibus, Bonn, 1879, p. 31, will shew that the note should 
read: ‘321 sq. delet Wheeler.’ 

I would add here that there is need of some correction in vv. 313- 
318. Reiske, with his remarkable power of reading Greek ‘by the 
light of nature’, saw what was needed in vv. 314-316. In v. 317 sq. 
I would restore, as Lenting suggested (‘Placeret mihi, νυμφεύσω---- 
θαρσυνῶ᾽, Ep. Crit. p. 58), the first person (cf. Trans. Am. Philol. 
Assoc. 32 [1901], p.c)*. The whole passage will then read thus: 

σὺ δ᾽, ὦ τέκνον por, THs κορευθήσῃ καλῶς 
᾿τοίας τυχοῦσα συζύγῳ τῷ σῷ πατρὶ 

ἦ σοί τιν᾽ αἰσχρὰν προσβαλοῦσα κληδόνα 
ἥβης ἐν ἀκμῇ σοὺς διαφθερεῖ γάμους ; 

Οὐ γάρ σε μήτηρ οὔτε νυμφεύσω ποτὲ 
οὔτ᾽ ἐν τόκοισι σοῖσι θαρσυνῶ, τέκνον " 

I am prepared to hear murmurs at this point about the Megarian . 
brigand’s famous bit of furniture; but would Euripides himself, 
ὅπου ποτ᾽ ἔστι, be inclined to say Ὦ λέκτρα ἹΤροκρούστει᾽ ἐν οἷς ἔτλην ἐγὼ 
στερρὰν ἀνάγκην αἰνέσαι κεδνός περ Sv? For the speech of Alcestis 
pruned of the excrescences—or, rather, adherescences—that I have 
just treated of is forty-one verses long and thus exactly matches in 
length Admetus’s answering speech in vy. 328-368. If then I am 
right in my treatment of Alcestis’s speech, it is reasonably certain 
that Admetus’s contains no spurious lines and that the excision of 
vv. 348-356, though proposed by so acute a critic as the late F. Ὁ. 
Allen and accepted by Hayley, is unjustifiable, whatever we may 
think of the taste displayed in those verses. 


1 [See below, Notes on Nominative of First Person in Euripides. ] 


102 Greek Authors 


EURIPIDE, ALCESTE, 1-85." 


Dans l’admirable édition de |’Alceste d’Euripide de feu M. Hayley, 
on trouve exprimés des doutes sur I’authenticité de la scéne un peu 
comique entre Apollon et Thanatos vv. 24-76 (pp. xxvii-xxix). 
Ces doutes, qui sont dus au savant maitre du jeune et brillant 
helléniste que nous venons de perdre, M. F. D. Allen, mort lui-méme- 
il y a deux ans, étaient partagés par M. Hayley. Quoqu’il soit bien 
difficile ou de lever de pareils doutes ou d’établir d’une maniére 
pleinement satisfaisante l’authenticité des vers en question, j’ose 
ici donner sommairement des raisons assez curieuses qui, entre 
autres, m’inclinent a croire que les vers 1-85 de l’Alceste, excepté 
le v. 16, qui n’est pas d’Euripide, forment, pour ainsi dire, un tout. 

Les vers 1-27, exclusion faite du v. 16, sont au nombre de 26 (se 
divisant en 7 + 7+ 6 - 6). Les vers anapestiques 28-37, hors 
exclamation ὦ ὦ, qui est extra metrum, sont au nombre de 9.2 
Les vers 38-63 sont au nombre de 26 et font en quelque sorte 
pendant aux vers du prologue d’Apollon. Ils se divisent en deux 
parties égales, les vers 51 ἔχω λόγον δὴ καὶ προθυμίαν σέθεν rappelant 
d’une maniére qui n’est peut étre pas accidentelle le vers 38 θάρσει" 
δίκην τοι καὶ λόγους κεδνοὺς ἔχω. Les vers 64-76, qui sont au nombre 
de 13, se partagent entre Apollon et Thaftatos dans la ptoportion de 
8 a 5, ce qui rappelle la division en 8 + 5 des 13 vers d’Oedipe au 
commencement de |’Oedipe Roi et de l’Oedipe ἃ Colone de Sophocle. 
Or les vers anapestiques du choeur qui suivent (77-85) sont au 
nombre de 9 et rappellent un peu, et par leur nombre et par la 
présence du mot μελάθρων dans le premier vers ainsi que du mot πόσιν 
pres de la fin, les vers anapestiques de Thanatos (28-37). Je me 
demande, vu la ressemblance superficielle entre ces deux parties 
anapestiques et aussi la singularité d’expression qui se trouve a la 
fin du premigr morceau (vv. 36-37), 51] n’y avait pas dans le 
manuscrit du poéte méme une ressemblance plus frappante encore. 
Afin de ne pas perdre trop de mots sur un sujet ou est mélée la con- 
jecture et peut-étre aussi la petitio principii, je réunirai ici les deux 
morceayix sous une forme qui me semble s’approcher peut-étre plus 
de original. J’ajoute que M. Hayley, a qui j’ai communiqué cette 
conjecture, l’a trouvée au moins fort intéressante. 

[From the Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIV (1900), pp. 145-146.] 

* Je pense maintenant que j'avais tort de condamner dans mon edition le vers 31. 


Euripides 103 


Vv. 28-37. 
a a4 (extra metrum) 
τί σὺ τῇδε πολεῖς, Ti σύ, πρὸς μελάθροις, 
Φοῖβ᾽ ; ἀδικεῖς αὖ τιμὰς ἐνέρων, 
> / ‘ 4 
ἀφοριζόμενος καὶ καταπαύων ; 
» Ν ’ὔ ’ὔ > , 
οὐκ ἤρκεσέ σοι μόρον ᾿Αδμήτου 
. διακωλῦσαι, Μοίρας δολίῳ 
σφήλαντα τέχνῃ, νῦν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇδ᾽ αὖ 
/ rf ~ ε ’ 
χέρα τοξήρη φρουρεῖς ὁπλίσας, 
a LAN 4 / 3 A 
ἣ τόδ᾽ ὑπέστη, πόσιν ἐκλῦσαι 
προθανοῦσ᾽ αὐτή, Πελώου παῖς ; 
Vv. 77-85. 
τί ποθ᾽ ἡσυχία πρόσθεν μελάθρων ; 
’ if / > / 
τί σεσίγηται δόμος ᾿Αδμήτου ; 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ φιλων πέλας «ἔστ᾽» οὐδεὶς 
9 Ἅ vf 4 / 
ὅστις ἂν εἴποι πότερον φθιμένην 
χρὴ βασιλειαν πενθεῖν ἢ ζῶσ᾽ 
ἔτι φῶς λεύσσει Πελίου τόδε παῖς 
" AX > \ ἔοι ee ee 
κηστις, ἐμοὶ πᾶσί τ᾽ ἀρίστη 
δόξασα γυνὴ πόσιν εἰς αὑτῆς, 
{«προθανοῦσ᾽ αὐτοῦ, γεγενῆσθαι. 


NOTE ON EURIPIDES, ANDROMACHE 5." 


Eur. Andr. 5 haud negligenda positio rfominis proprii ᾿Ανδρομάχη : 
simplex enim ordo verborum fuisset ᾿Ανδρομάχη ζηλωτὸς cet. Praeivit 
Sophocles cum scriberet O. 7. 8 ὁ πᾶσι κλεινὸς Οἰδίπους καλούμενος Pro 
60 quod est Οἰδίπους ὁ πᾶσι cet. De sede in versu nominis ᾿Ανδρομάχη 
cf. ᾿Αντιγόνη Soph. O.C. 1; cf. et ᾿Αστυάνακτ᾽, Andr. 10. In verbis 
eis quae sunt, ζηλωτὸς ἔν ye τῷ πρὶν --᾿Ανδρομάχη --- χρόνῳ non deside- 
ramus sed intelligimus sententiam quam in versu insequente legimus : 
νῦν δ᾽, εἴ τις ἄλλη, δυστυχεστάτη γύνη. At ista νεῦρα addita sunt ut 
inferrentur versus qui sunt 8-15 quibus bene describuntur Andro- 
machae praesentes res adversae. His in versibus παιδοποιὸς illud v. 4 
quod adhuc otiosum esse videbatur oppositum habet pueri occisi 
descriptio vv. 9 et 10; opponuntur autem versui 4 versus 14 
et 15. Inest re vera in versibus 1-15 chiasmus qui dicitur pul- 
cherrimus hunc in modum : δάμαρ δοθεῖσα (a) παιδοποιὸς (8) Ἕκτορι (y), 


1[MS. note. ] 


104 Greek Authors 


ζηλωτὸς ἔν ye τῷ πρὶν -- χρόνῳ (δ) )( viv δ᾽, εἴ τις ἄλλη, δυστυχεστάτη γυνή 
(8), ἥτις πόσιν - -ἝἝκτορ᾽ - - θανόντ᾽ ἐσεῖδον (γ΄), παῖδα θ᾽ ὃν τίκτω πόσει 
ῥιφθέντα (βΎ, αὐτὴ δὲ δούλη κτὲ. TE νησιώτῃ (Cf. ᾿Ασιάτιδος γῆς ν. 1.) 
Νεοπτολέμῳ δορὸς γέρας δοθεῖσα κτὲ. ((΄)Ὶ Omnia secundum artem. 


NOTE ON EURIPIDES, BACCHAE 1058-1062.! 
Πενθεὺς δ᾽ ὁ τλήμων, θῆλυν οὐχ ὁρῶν ὄχλον, Ἶ 
ἔλεξε τοιάδ᾽ - ὦ ξέν᾽, οὗ μὲν ἕσταμεν, 

οὐκ ἐξικνοῦμαι μαινάδων Τὅσοι νόθων - 

ὄχθον δ᾽ ἐπεμβὰς ἢ ἐλάτην ὑψαύχενα 

ἴδοιμ᾽ ἂν ὀρθῶς μαινάδων aicypoupyiar. 

V. 1060 is notoriously corrupt and consequently multum et diu 
vexatus. The situation is a plain one, and so is the general sense 
of the verse. All the conjectures down to Professor Tyrrell’s are of 
a desperate character. They all emend both the words obelized (not 
designedly of course, so far as they accept Estienne’s text); but 
the one horn of the verbal dilemma is generally grasped more tena- 
ciously than the other. Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona, and so 
Heath and Hermann read ὄσσοις for ὅσοι : but the acceptance of 
νόθων was left for the latest of the éréyova. Let us now try the justly 
favourite device of ‘put yourself in his place’ and see what Pentheus 
would naturally have said, or what you would have said, had you 
been Pentheus. Poor Pentheus! he cannot see the women; he is 
impatient. ‘Where we stand I can’t begin to see anything of the 
maenads. If I could only mount a hill or climb a tree I could 
get a fine view of the maenads’ rascality.. The words however 
do not emphasize sufficiently, with any of the conjectures thus far 
offered (except Elmsley’s ὅσον ποθῶ), the exertion that Pentheus 
has been making to no purpose—his disappointed efforts. The de- 
spairing ‘I can’t though I want to’ does not—mea quidem sententia 
of course—come out strongly enough. Having thus tried to prepare 
the way, I accept ὄσσοις, reject νόθων (the nomen is here an omen), 
and try to find another solution of the difficulty. The end of the 
verse must have been badly preserved indeed to admit of even a 
scribe’s writing ὅσοι νόθων; but there must have been something 
there. The hypothesis of the omission of one of twain would seem 
necessary to explain ὅσοι for ὄσσοις. But νόθων does not begin with C 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 312. ] 


a oa a τ 


Euripides 105 


in the alphabet of our dernier ressort—nor with anything like it. 

But though OCCOICNOOWN will not serve our purpose OCCOIC 

OONWN will; and here I think we have the clue to the solution. 

Not to stretch out a long speech, I would rewrite the verse thus: 
οὐκ ἐξικνεῖσθαι μαινάδων ὄσσοις σθένω. 


NOTES ON THE BACCHAE OF EURIPIDES. 
I. Vv. 13-24. 

λιπὼν δὲ Λυδῶν τοὺς πολυχρύσους γύας 
Φρυγῶν τε Περσῶν θ᾽ ἡλιοβλήτους πλάκας 

15 Βάκτριά τε τείχη τήν τε δύσχιμον χθόνα 
Μήδων ἐπελθὼν ᾿Αραβίαν τ᾽ εὐδαίμονα 
᾿Ασῶν τε πᾶσαν, ἣ παρ᾽ ἁλμυρὰν ἅλα 
κεῖται μιγάσιν Ἔλλησι βαρβάροις θ᾽ ὁμοῦ 
πλήρεις ἔχουσα καλλιπυργώτους πόλεις, 

20 εἰς τήνδε πρῶτον ἦλθον Ἑλλήνων πόλιν, 
κἀκεῖ χορεύσας καὶ καταστήσας ἐμὰς 
τελέτας, ἵν᾽ εἴην ἐμφανῶς δαίμων βροτοῖς. 
πρώτας δὲ Θήβας τῆσδε γῆς Ἑλληνίδος 
ἀνωλόλυξα κτέ. 

Pierson’s conjecture that v. 20 should stand between vv. 22 and 
23 has met with considerable favor. It brings in its train, if ac- 
cepted, Wecklein’s natural and necessary change of ἐπελθών to ἐπῆλθον 
in v. 16 (with the omission of θ᾽ after Περσῶν in v. 14), and of 
πόλιν tO χθόνα in v. 20. It is easy to see how χθόνα was corrupted to 
πόλιν when v. 20 came to stand after v. 19. Furthermore, πρῶτον 
in v. 20 should surely be changed to πρώτην, unless we assume, after 
v. 22, a lacuna of a verse or verses in which a second action of 
Dionysus was described. Such an assumption is, however, highly 
improbable; for not only is Pierson’s transposition intrinsically 
plausible, but it can be supported from another passage in the 
Bacchae, vv. 481 sq.: 

HE. ἦλθες δὲ πρῶτα δεῦρ᾽ ἄγων τὸν δαίμονα ; 
ΔΙ. πᾶς ἀναχορεύει βαρβάρων τάδ᾽ ὄργια. 

In ν. 481 ἦλθες πρῶτα δεῦρο --- εἰς τήνδε πρώτην ἦλθες xOova—an Obvious 
reminiscence οὗ v. 20; while v. 482 is an'echo of vv. 21 sq. (dvaxo- 
pever = γορεύσας, ὄργια — τελετάς). 

1[From Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. V (1894), pp- 45-48.) 


? 


106 Greek Authors 


2. Vv. ΙΟΙ 544. 
στεφάνωσν τε δρακόντων 
θηροτρόφοι Ῥ. 
θυρσοφόροι = C. 
Μαινάδες ἀμφιβάλλονται πλοκάμοις. 

The various readings θηροτρόφοι and θυρσοφόροι, neither of which 
gives any adequate sense in the context, argue some deep-seated 
corruption—such, e. g., as mutilation or illegibility of, the archetype. 
(Vv. 556 sq. may have something to do with the present form of 
the text here.) θηρότροφον (the only possible support of which is 
Phoen. 820) is, to my mind, simply preposterous. “Beast-fed” is 
an epithet that can be applied only to a serpent of vast size, and 
“beast-fed’’ is the only sense that θηρότροφον could bear. I would 
suggest as a possible correction ὑγρὰν σπεῖραν ὄφεων. For this 
common sequence of δράκων and ὄφις, cf. Bacch. 1026, 1330 sq.; Ion 
23-24—particularly the last, where a rite is similarly explained. 


στεφάνοις, ἔνθεν ἄγραν ἱ 


3: V5 120. 
On the basis of Hermann’s βακχείῳ δ᾽ ἀνὰ συντόνῳ and Collmann’s 
βακχεῖον δ᾽ ἀνὰ τύμπανον, 1 would propose βακχείῳ δ᾽ ἀνὰ τυμπάνῳ (with 
ἁδυβοᾶν in v. 127, and πνεύματα in ν. 128). 


4. V. 150. 
τρυφερὸν πλόκαμον εἰς αἰθέρα ῥίπτων. 
A pure Ionic verse may be restored by substituting βόστρυχον for 


πλόκαμον. That this change adds another p to the verse is rather 
in its favor. 


δ: Ns 30%; 
γέρων γέροντα παιδαγωγήσω o ἐγώ. 

This verse must certainly be understood as a question, and accord- 
ingly be followed by ;. Tiresias declares himself young again and 
ready to dance (v. 190). Cadmus rejoins, with some surprise at 
this energy on the part of the blind old seer (v. 191), “Shall we 
not then take some conveyance to the mountain (= Surely you don’t - 
intend to go on foot)?’ Tiresias objects (v. 192): “ But we 
shouldn’t be paying as much honour to the god (as if we went on 
foot).” Cadmus, still unwilling (v. 193): “Am J to lead you, old 


\ 





Euripides 107 


as we are, as if I were your παιδαγωγός ἢ To which Tiresias 
reassuringly (v. 194): “It will be no labour, for the god will guide 
us thither.” Then the dancing is again touched upon (v. 195) and 
Cadmus at length gives in (v. 197). A parallel to the question in 
v. 193 is afforded by the somewhat similar scene in the Heraclidae, 
where the servant says to old Iolaus (v. 729), ἦ παιδαγωγεῖν yap τὸν 
ὁπλίτην χρεών ; 


6. Vv. 210 sq. 
ἐπεὶ σύ φέγγος, Τειρεσία, τόδ᾽ οὐχ ὁρᾷς, 
ἐγὼ προφήτης σοι λόγων γενήσομαι. 
προφήτης σοι λόγων cannot, I feel, be right. προφήτης, in its proper 

sense, is to be found in v. 551. The genitive with it should repre- 
sent the person (god) whose mouthpiece the προφήτης is. Instead 
then of προφήτης σοι λόγων, I propose προηγητὴρ λόγων “ guide in 
words,” comparing προηγητῆρα συμφορᾶς in v. 1159. As used in 
respect of a blind man, προηγητήρ, without a special term in the 
genitive, would mean προηγητήρ ὅδοῦ (or κελεύθου) ; cf. the use of 
mponyntys in Sophocles, Ant. g90, O. T. 1292. Euripides has 
προηγητήρ of a blind man’s guide in the Phoenix, frag. 813, 2. 


PN a 
ἔμενέ τε τοὐμὸν εὐπρεπὲς ποιούμενος. 

Professor Tyrrell adheres to the reading of the MSS. here. “The 
middle with a pred. adj. must mean making for one’s self. Now, as | 
Dionysus was at least as much interested as the servant in the 
seemliness of the arrest, there seems no reason why we should desert 
the MSS., ‘turning for himself my task to seemliness.’” With this 
I agree so far as εὐπρεπὲς ποιούμενος is concerned; τοὐμόν, however, 
seems harsh in such a context. I would, therefore, (without any 
reference to Professor Tyrrell’s “my task’’), correct τοὔργον. 


8. Vv. 460 sq. - 
πρῶτον μὲν οὖν μοι λέξον ὅστις εἶ γένος. 
ΔΙ. οὐ κόμπος οὐδεὶς ῥᾷδιον δ᾽ εἰπεῖν τόδε. 
οὐ κόμπος is obviously corrupt. Boasting is not opposed to ease 
of any kind. The error, which arose from illegibility and wrong 
division of letters, is to be corrected by writing οὐκ ὄγκος οὐδείς. 


108 Greek Authors 


Cf. Soph. O. C. 1162, βραχύν tw’ αἰτεῖ μῦθον οὐκ ὄγκου πλέων. For 
the general expression, cf. Demosthenes, vi, 4, p¢diov καὶ πόνος οὐδεὶς 
πρόσεστι τῷ πράγματι, and Bacch. 613, ῥᾳδίως ἄνευ πόνου. 


Os. V-688:. 
θηρᾶν καθ᾽ ὕλην Κύπριν ἠρημωμένας. 
This verse is very awkward and disturbing after v. 687. It seems 
to have been added, with reference to vv. 222 sq., by some one who 
wanted to bring the two passages into closer agrgement. 


10. Vv. 1088 sq. 
ὃ δ᾽ αὖθις ἐπεκέλευσεν - ὡς δ᾽ ἐγνώρισαν 
σαφῆ (? σαφῶς) κελευσμὸν Βακχίου Κάδμου κόραι, κτὲ. 
ἐπεκέλευσεν followed in the next verse by κελευσμόν is at least 

noticeable. Perhaps Euripides may have so written; I suspect, 
however, that he wrote ἐπεθώυξεν, the future of which occurs in 
I. T. 1127, though in a different context. In favor of ἐπεθώνξεν 
here, followed (in vv. 1090 sq.) by #éav πελείας ὠκύτητ᾽ οὐχ ἥσσονα 
(em. Heath) | ποδῶν ἔχουσαι συντόνοις δρομήμασι, are the 
words (vv. 871 sq.) θωύσσων δὲ κυναγέτας | συντείνῃ δρόμημα 
κυνῶν. Cf. also vv. 1188-91, and Soph. O. C. 1623-5. 


NOTES ΟΝ THE: AHECUBAS 
19 Sq. καλῶς παρ᾽ ἀνδρὶ Θρῃκὶ πατρῴῳ ξένῳ 
τροφαῖσιν ὥς τις πτόρθος ηὐξόμην τάλας. 
τάλας I believe to be wrong. Everything is pictured in the most 
favourable colours from v. 16 to v. 20. Polydorus’s ‘wretchedness’ 
begins after the events narrated in vv. 21-24, and then he does call 
himself ‘wretched’ (τὸν ταλαίπωρον v.25). I would read in v. 20 μέγας, 
comparing Bacch. 183 (αὔξεσθαι μέγαν). Thus too is the comparison 
with πτόρθος properly carried out. (The locus classicus for such com- 
parison is Hom. Od. vi. 162 sq.) 
153. φοινισσομένην αἵματι παρθένον. 
A most inharmonious verse. We should, I think, reverse the 
order of words and read παρθένον αἵματι φοινισσομένην. 
585 sq. ὦ θύγατερ, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ εἰς ὅ τι βλέψω κακῶν 
πολλῶν παρόντων * ἢν γὰρ ἅψωμαί τινος, 
τόδ᾽ οὐκ ἐᾷ με, παρακαλεῖ δ᾽ ἐκεῖθεν αὖ 
λύπη τις ἄλλη διάδοχος κακῶν κακοῖς. 
1 [From ‘Euripidean Notes’, the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), pp. 345-346. ] 


Euripides Ὁ 109 


Something is certainly wrong with τόδ᾽ οὐκ ἐᾷ pe. ‘If I have laid 
hold of any (evil), this does not allow me, but I am called off by 
another grief in another quarter.’ What ‘does not allow’? The evil 
seized? Nonsense. ‘Does not allow me’—to do what? To keep 
hold of it (ἔχεσθαι) ἢ Nonsense again. To be brief, I emend thus: 

ἢν yap Grrwpai τινος, 
τόδ᾽ οὐκ ἐῶμαι, παρακαλεῖ δ᾽ κτέ. 

‘If I seek to grasp any (evil, grief), this I am not allowed (to 
do, i. 6. ἅψασθαι implied in what precedes), but am called off’ &c. 
ἅπτωμαι became ἅψωμαι under the influence of βλέψω above it. τόδε 
is, of course, acc. of inner object w. ἐῶμαι. 

833 sq. τὸν θανόντα τόνδ᾽ Spas ; 
τοῦτον καλῶς δρῶν ὄντα κηδεστὴν σέθεν 
δράσεις. 

“ὄντα, for τὸν ὄντα. The omission of the article is deserving of 
notice. Compare Aesch. Cho. 353, Pers. 247.’ (Paley.) What is 
‘deserving of notice’ is the utter weakness and insipidity of ὄντα, and 
also the fact that it stands under -όντα in the preceding verse. It is, 
of course, an error. Read ἄνδρα. 

882. σὺν ταῖσδε τὸν ἐμὸν φονέα τιμωρήσομαι. 

τὸν ἐμὸν φονέα is a somewhat strange expression (though, of course, 
poetically possible) for the murderer of one’s child; besides the 
successive tribrachs make a bad verse. I would suggest τέκνου φονέα. 
The affectionate tone: of τέκνου is eminently appropriate here. 

1293-5 ἴτε πρὸς λιμένας σκηνάς τε, φίλαι, 
τῶν δεσποσύνων πειρασόμεναι 
μόχθων > στερρὰ γὰρ ἀνάγκη. 

That δεσποσύνων has maintained itself, as it seems to have done, 
criticis intactum, is perhaps due to its position at that point where 
the reader is ready to lay down the play. I have no hesitation in 
writing in its stead δουλοσύνων : cf. v. 448 sq. (also of the chorus) τῷ 
δουλόσυνος πρὸς οἶκον | κτηθεῖσ᾽ ἀφίξομαι. : 


NOTES ON THE HERACLEIDAE.* 
3. 68 εἰς τὸ κέρδος λῆμ᾽ ἔχων ἀνειμένον. 
Read ἀνημμένον ‘made fast’, a familiar nautical metaphor: cf. Med. 
1[¥From ‘Euripidean Notes’, the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), Ρ. 344-] 


110 Greek Authors 


770 ἐκ τοῦδ᾽ ἀναψόμεσθα πρυμνήτην κάλων. The construction of εἰς c. 
acc. occurs Phoen. 569 ἀμαθεῖς ΓἌδραστος χάριτας εἴς σ᾽ ἀνήψατο. 
280 sq. λαμπρὸς δ᾽ ἀκούσας σὴν ὕβριν φανήσεται 
σοὶ καὶ πολίταις γῇ τε τῇδε καὶ φυτοῖς. 

Read λυπρὸς for λαμπρὸς and cf. Aled. 301 κρείσσων νομισθεὶς λυπρὸς 
ἐν πόλει φανεῖ. By the opposite confusion λυπρῶς appears for λαμπρῶς 
in Bacch. 814, where Mr. Palmer has anticipated me in the conjec- 
ture. 


NOTES ON THE HERCULES FURENS? 
195. ὅσοι δὲ τόξοις χεῖρ᾽ ἔχουσιν εὔστοχον. 

Read ὅσοι δὲ χερσὶ τόξ᾽ ἔχουσιν εὔστοχα. 

Cf. Hel. 76, εὐστόχῳ πτέρῳ. 

445.3544ᾳ. ἄλοχόν τε φίλην ὑπὸ σειραίοις 

ποσ iv ἕλκουσ. αν τέκνα καὶ γεραιὸν 
πατέρ᾽ Ἡρακλέους. 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff maintains the integrity of the traditional 
text here, and in this I am not disposed to differ from him; but his 
notes on vv. 445 and 447 seem to contain such strange things as to 
demand more than a passing notice. They run thus: “ὑπὸ ποσὶν 
sind die kinder, wie man in stehender formel sage, dass die rosse 
ὑφ᾽ ἅρμασιν sind, ‘unten an’. Die wendung kam Eur. wol, weil er 
ein ahnliches bild wahlte, obwol die kinder nicht ziehen, sondern 
gezogen werden. [One might think this a decidedly disturbing 
element in the picture!] Megaras fiisse sind fiir die kinder σείραιοι, 
weil sie mit den eignen nicht vorwarts kommen. [A glance at the 
scene of the children’s murder, vv. 971 sqq., will prove that they 
were somewhat more active on their feet than that.] Denn wenn 
die jochpferde nicht geniigen, so spannt man ein leinpferd, σείραιος, 
daneben, so tut es Patroklos, 1152. Ovest. 1016 kommt Pylades 
und stiitzt den kranken Orestes, ἰθύνων νοσερὸν κῶλον ᾿Ορέστου ποδὶ 
κηδοσύνῳ παράσειρος... .᾿ “πατέρα hangt natiirlich [unless my reading has 
been of none effect, I should say ‘ganz unnatiirlich’] von ὁρῶ [ἐσορῶ] 
ab, nicht von ἕλκουσαν. [But certainly the well-nigh bedridden old 
man is in more need of a παράσειρος than the children.] If any one 
but the author of these notes can be satisfied with them— εὐτυχοίη. 


? [From ‘Euripidean Notes’, the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), pp. 344-346-] 





| 
Ἷ 
} 
4 


Euripides 11Ὶ 


The real interpretation of the passage, I think, though perhaps I too 
may be an ‘unskilful physician’, is to be gathered from such passages 
as H. F. 631 sq. (ἄξω λαβών ye τούσδ᾽ ἐφολκίδας χεροῖν, | vats δ᾽ ὡς 
ἐφέλξω), 1424 (Θησεῖ πανώλεις ἑψόμεσθ᾽ ἐ φολκίδες), Androm. 199 
Sq. (πότερον ἵν᾿ αὐτὴ παῖδας ἀντὶ σοῦ τέκω | δόυλους ἐμαυτῇ τ᾽ ἀθλίαν 
ἐφολκίδα). The figure then is drawn from the favourite province 
of Euripides—the sea. The children and the old man are ἐφολκέδες 
in the wake of Megara. (Cf. Wilamowitz’s instructive note on H. F. 
631). But what shall we say to ὑπὸ σειραίοις wociv? The adjective, 
I think, tells the story. It is just this element that keeps us (or 
kept the original hearers) from thinking of Megara’s feet at all. 
ποσὶν here = πείσμασιν, as in Hec. 1019 Sq. (καὶ yap ᾿Αργεῖοι νεῶν | λῦσαι 
ποθοῦσιν οἴκαδ᾽ ἐκ Τροίας πόδα, where πόδα seems pretty clearly meant 
Ξτ-επρυμνήσιον πεῖσμα. The σείραιοι πόδες are, then, the lines that keep 
the ἐφολκέδες in tow, and ὑπὸ o. π. ἕλκουσαν---ἐφέλκουσαν. With cepaiors 
ποσὶν Cf. the δέσμα σειραίων βρόχων with which Heracles is ‘moored to 
a column’ (ἀνήπτομεν πρὸς κίον in Vv. 1009. 
667 sq. ἴσον ἅτ᾽ ἐν νεφέλαισιν ἄ- 

' στρων ναύταις ἀριθμὸς πέλει. 

Read rather πρέπει than waa. Cf. Soph. Antig. 478, where for 
ἐκπέλει Blaydes reads οὖν πρέπει: I would read εὐπρεπές. 


NOTES ON THE HIPPOLYTUS. 


1-2.' In Hipp. 1-2, the harsh order of the words has led many to 
misunderstand them, M. Weil and Professor von Wilamowitz-Moel- 
lendorff being honorable exceptions. The verses are of course to 
be understood as equivalent to: Πολλὴ μὲν ἐν βροτοῖσιν οὐρανοῦ τ᾽ ἔσω 
κέκλημαι θεὰ Κύπρις (πολλὴ κέκλημαι--- μέγα ἔχω τὸ ὄνομα) κοὐκ ἀνώνυμός 
« εἰμι». 

43-46.: Multorum apud veteres scriptores tum latinos tum graecos 
locorum perverse iniecta interpunctione detortum atque obscuratum 
esse sensum non huius temporis neque omnino necesse est ut admo- 
neam. Unum tantum ex ingenti numero hic repurgare conabor. Est 
is locus Eur. Hipp. 43-46, ubi in omnibus quaecumque mihi quidem 
innotuerunt editionibus post γέρας vocabulum virgula intrusa est, 


1[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXII 
(1901), p. xxix. ] 
5 [From Mnemosyne XXX (1902), p. 136.] 


ΓΙ2 Greek Authors 


quae si sublata erit, statim et verus verborum atque sententiarum 
contextus emerget et correctione levissima illa quidem versum 46 
sanandum esse comparebit. Totum de quo agitur locum hunc in 
modum scribendum esse censeo: 

καὶ τὸν μὲν ἡμῖν πολέμιον νεανίαν 

κτενεῖ πατὴρ ἀραῖσιν ἃς ὁ πόντιος 

ἄναξ ἸΤοσειδῶν ὥπασεν Θησεῖ γέρας 

μηδὲν ματαίους ἐς τρὶς εὔξασθαι θεῷ, 
sensus autem est: et infensum tllum nobis tuvenem interficiet pater 
precibus quibus marinus ille rex Neptunus honoris causa Theseo 
concessit ut minime irritis ter adiret deum. Vix admonendos esse 
lectores arbitror vocabulum quod est θεῷ eodem modo pro αὐτῷ 
positum esse atque supra illud Θησεῖ. Ex mente loquentis vel, ut 
recentiorum philosophorum dicendi ratione utar, obiective non sub- 
iective utrumque dictum. 

2094. γυναῖκες aide συγκαθιστάναι νόσον. 


Notwithstanding Wecklein’s expressed and Wilamowitz’s tacit 
support of the text, I cannot make myself believe that γυναῖκες is 
right. It seems to me to have supplanted, as gloss, another word, 


ViZ. πάρεισιν. 
A CRITICAL NOTE ON EURIPIDES, ION 1-32 


ἴΑτλας 6 χαλκέοισι νώτοις οὐρανὸν 
θεῶν παλαιὸν οἶκον ἐκτρίβων θεῶν 
μιᾶς ἔφυσε Μαῖαν, 7 κτέ. 
In these verses the following peculiarities have arrested the atten- 
tion of critics :— 
(1) The laboured rhythm of the first verse—particularly the 
violation of the Porsonian rule of the ‘final cretic’ ; 
(2) The remarkable use of ἐκτρίβων ; 
(3) The occurrence of the word θεῶν at the beginning and end 
OE ¥:-2; 
(4) The construction of simple genitive, instead of genitive with 
ἐκ, with ἔφυσε. 
In order to get rid of the ‘final cretic’ in v. 1, Badham suggested 
1 [From ‘Euripidean Notes’, the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p- 344-] 


[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXV 
(1894), pp. lxiii-lxiv. ] 


στ ee 


Euripides 113 


νώζοισιν πόλον, Nauck (followed by van Herwerden) νώτοισιν φέρων. 
Were we to adopt the latter reading, we should assume that οὐρανὸν 
was originally a gloss on θεῶν παλαιὸν οἶκον. If, however, we follow 
Hermann’s view (as expounded in his Elementa Doctrinae Metricae, 
I. vili.), we shall regard Euripides as having employed an allowable 
license “in descriptione rei magni moliminis plenae,” and treat v. 1 
as metrically sound. 

Of éxrpiBwv θεῶν Nauck says (in his annotatio critica, Teubner 
text-edition): “verba nondum emendata. Sententiam si spectes, ἐκ 
τῶν ‘Oxeavidwv μιᾶς requiritur.” W. Dindorf (followed by van Her- 
werden) changes ἐκτρίβων to ἐκ τριῶν. Atlas had three wives. (See 
p. v. of Dindorf’s preface to the Leipsic edition of his text of 
Sophocles, 1867.) But van Herwerden, in order to make Euripides’s 
Hermes quite explicit (and, incidentally, to get rid of one of the 
GeSv's), not only transfers (with Dindorf, loc. cit., p. vi.) μιᾶς to the 
close of v. 2, but replaces it in v. 3 by ἀλόχων. Thus the disputed 
passage runs in van Herwerden’s text as follows: 

"Arhas, ὃ χαλκέοισι νώτοισιν φέρων 
θεῶν παλαιὸν οἶκον, ἐκ τριῶν μιᾶς 
ἀλόχων ἔφυσε Μαῖαν, ἣ κτέ. 
This, notwithstanding the ἀλόχων, is certainly better than Dindorf’s 
ἴἤΑτλας 6 χαλκόνωτος οὐρανὸν θεῶν 
ὀχῶν παλαιὸν οἶκον ἐκ τριῶν μιᾶς 
θεῶν ἔφυσε Μαῖαν, xré. 

Let us turn now to the examination of a word that has thus far 
run the gauntlet, though to it, in my belief, is due, in great measure, 
the corruption of v. 2. This is the word οἶκον. In v. 15 the two 
MSS. of our play contain the same word in the same place (γαστρὸς 
διήνεγκ᾽ οἶκον). This, as was seen long ago by Brodaeus( and it did 
not need much penetration to see it), is a corruption of ὄγκον (OT KON 
with carelessly written [, misread and miscopied—perhaps partly 
under the influence of οἴκοις in v. 16) . Let us now substitute ὄγκον 
for οἶκον in v. 2 and observe the result. Instead of an “ancient 
house” we have an “ancient mass”, and θεῶν at the beginning of 
v. 2 at once appears in the guise of an explanatory gloss on παλαιὸν 
oikxov —an answer to the natural query: Whose “ancient house”? For 
θεῶν we readily substitute φέρων, comparing διήνεγκ᾽ ὄγκον in v. 15 
(we need hardly think of Nauck’s emendation of v. 1). Thus we 


114 Greek Authors 


have Atlas described as “he that on brazen shoulders bears heaven, 
an ancient mass”. This can hardly be right, unless (though it seems 
scarcely justifiable) we understand ὄγκον as precisely = ἄχθος (“his 
ancient burden’’). I would, therefore, accepting Hermann’s defence 
of the metre of v. 1, make a slight change in the last word of that 
verse, and read οὐρανοῦ. It is then “he that on brazen shoulders 
bears heaven’s ancient mass’. 

For ἐκτρίβων Dindorf’s ἐκ τριῶν seems to be quite right. ἐκτρίβων is 
due, if my emendation of οἶκον be sound, to somebody’s attempt to 
construe the passage after θεῶν had ousted φέρων. 

There is no need of bringing τριῶν and μιᾶς together; for if it be 
urged that the contrast of τριῶν and μιᾶς makes it more natural that 
the two words stand side by side, we may answer that Euripides 
is hinting at what he conceived to be the etymology of Maia; hence 
μιᾶς ἔφυσε Μαῖαν. 

The whole passage, then, | would read thus: 

"Arias, ὃ χαλκέοισι νώτοις οὐρανοῦ 
φέρων παλαιὸν ὄγκον, ἐκ τριῶν θεῶν 


“-“ a 
μιᾶς ἔφυσε Μαῖαν, 7 κτὲέ. 


NOTES ON THE JPHIGENIA TAURICA} 
285-290. Πυλάδη, δέδορκας τήνδε; τήνδε δ᾽ οὐχ ὁρᾷς 


ἽΑιδου δράκαιναν, ὥς με βούλεται κτανεῖν 
δειναῖς ἐχίδναις εἰς ἔμ᾽ ἐστομωμένη ; 

ἡ δ᾽ ἐκ χιτώνων πῦρ πνέουσα καὶ φόνον 
πτεροῖς ἐρέσσει, μητέρ᾽ ἀγκάλαις ἐμὴν 
ἔχουσα, πέτρινον ὄχθον, ὡς ἐπεμβάλῃ. 

In these verses two points deserve notice. First, the words ἐκ 
χιτώνων (v. 288), which appear to have offended the editors gener- 
ally, with the exception of Seidler and Nauck, may be illustrated by 
Aesch. Choeph. 1048 sq. φαιοχίτωνες (qu. φαιηχίτωνες ὃ) καὶ πεπλε- 
κτανημέναι πυκνοῖς Spdxovow, a passage which Euripides seems to have 
had in mind when writing that under consideration, and to have 
endeavoured to improve on by substituting for πεπλεκτανημέναι πυκνοῖς 
δράκουσιν the graphic δειναῖς ἐχίδναις ἐστομωμένη. Likewise, for 
the rather neutral term φαιοχίτωνες he gives us the vivid image 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 226-227. ] 








ΡΥ es ΨΟΥΥΥ ΣΝ 


Euripides 115 


of a fury emitting fire and blood (cf. Aesch. Choeph. 1058) from 
her garments as she flies. 

Secondly, the word ὄχθον (v. 290) was emended by Heimsoeth to 
ὄγκον. But we certainly look for a term here in apposition to μητέρα 
(v. 289), for which purpose neither ὄχθον nor ὄγκον seems appropriate. 
Write rather dy#os,an emendation strongly supported by Aesch. 
Prom, 350, ἄχθος οὐκ εὐάγκαλον. 


1393. λάβρῳ κλύδωνι συμπεσοῦς᾽ ἠπείγετο. 


The verb ἠπείγετο here is quite unsuitable. 

The passages from Homer cited in support of it.are contrary to 
Euripides’s constant usage. Cf. Or. 799, Heracl. 732, Phoen. 1280 
(active), Or. 1258, Alc. 255, Alc. 1152, Heracl. 734, Ion 1258, 
Η. F. 586, Phoen. 1171, Hipp. 1185, Antiop. fr. 183 (Nauck) 
(middle), in all which passages the verb expresses acceleration or 
haste. Nor does Pierson’s conjecture ἐπείχετο seem entirely satisfac- 
tory. Read rather ἀπείργετο. Cf. Hel. 1268, πόσον δ᾽ ἀπείργει μῆκος ἐκ 
γαίας δόρυ; Alc. 255 is also instructive. 


1408. ἄλλος δὲ πλεκτὰς ἐξανῆπτεν ἀγκύλας. 


MSS. ἐξανῆπτεν ἀγκύρας, contra metrum, emended 45 above. How- 
ever, I suspect the reading to have been ἐξανῆκεν ἀγκύλας, corrupted 
by reference to v. 1351. Cf. Androm. 718, πλεκτὰς ἱμάντων στροφίδας 
ἐξανήσομαι. 

567.} ὃ τοῦ θανόντος δ᾽ ἔστι παῖς ΓΆργει πατρός ; 

The arrangement of the three last words of this verse is to me 
intolerably harsh, even obscure, and I cannot believe them to have 
been so placed by Euripides. Rather ἔστ᾽ ἔτ᾽ "Apye παῖς πατρός ; 

725 sq.’ ἀπέλθεθ᾽ ὑμεῖς καὶ παρευτρεπίζετε 
τἄνδον μολόντες τοῖς ἐφεστῶσι σφαγῇ. 

μολόντες in v. 726 is doubly objectionable: (1) it is otiose after 
ἀπέλθεθ᾽ in v. 725; (2) it could properly stand where it does, only if 
instead of τἄνδον we had ¢.g. ἔσω (unless we are to understand ἔσω 
from ἔνδον) ; but then παρευτρεπίζετε would lack an object, which it 
seems to require. I would therefore write μέλοντα, comparing v. 624 
(ἔσω δόμων τῶνδ᾽ εἰσὶν οἷς μέλει τάδε) and v. 470 Sq. (ναοῦ δ᾽ ἔσω στείχοντες 
εὐτρεπίζετε | ἃ χρὴ ᾽πὶ τοῖς παροῦσι καὶ νομίζεται). The sense is then: 


1[From ‘Euripidean Notes’, the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 345-] 


116 Greek Authors 


‘Aid those who have charge of the sacrificial act in making ready 
the matters within (the temple) which are in their charge.’ 


Ad Euripides [phigeniam Tauricam, vv. 1351-3." 

De loco vexato necdum emendato Eurip. I. T. 1351-3 pauca quae- 
dam habeo quae referam nova. Mihi enim versum 1352 data opera _ 
consideranti omnesque quae in manibus erant eruditorum coniec- 
turas deliberanti ac versibus qui secuntur diligenter animum adver- 
tenti remedium tandem sese obtulit illud, ut mutato versuum 1352-3 
ordine lectionem sic constituerem: 

ot δὲ κλίμακας 
πόντῳ διδόντες τῇ ξένῃ καθίεσαν 
σπουδῇ τ᾽ ἐσῆγον διὰ χερῶν πρυμνήσια. 
Nam versum 1352 haud temere textu qui dicitur movendum esse 
lucide docent mea quidem sententia verba εἰχόμεσθα τῆς ξένης πρυμνη- 
σίων te (1355-6). Sed hanc sententiam ut integram explicem ne- 
cesse totam scenam qualem auditori ob oculos ponere voluerit nun- 
tius quoad possim enarrem. Vidit enim navem. iam remis rite 
instructam remigesque ad laborem paratos (1346-8) ac iuvenes 
Orestem Pylademque ad puppim stantes (1348-9), dum nautae 
partim contis proram retinent, partim ancoram tollunt, partim scalam 
in usum Iphigeniae—nam quid adulescentibus agilibus cum tali ad 
navem praesertim πεντηκόντορον escendendam auxilio? — demittunt 
atque per festinationem πρυμνήσια iam iam soluturi sunt (1352-3). 
Quae conspicati Tauri statim decurrunt et non solum Iphigeniae sed 
etiam πρυμνησίοις illis manus iniciunt (1354-6). Tota iam pictura 
summatim enucleata restat ut de emendationibus singulis rationem 
quam brevissime reddam. Conieci igitur confuso ordine versuum 
1352-3 verbum διδόντες (quam emendationem iam saepius temptatam 
omnibus notum) in formam δὲ δόντες mutatum esse et in versu 1352 
participium σπεύδοντες coniunctione per ordinis mutationem otiosa 
facta ex terminationis similitudine illius διδόντες praveque intellectis 
litteris TES (σπουδῇ TES) ortum esse. Accedit quod hunc in modum 
constitutis versibus et collocationis verborum eius quae vulgo chias- 
mus appellatur pulcherrimum habemus exemplum, hoc est: (@) 
κόντοις --- πρῷραν εἶχον, (4) of δ᾽ ἐπωτίδων ἄγκυραν ἐξανῆπτον, (2) ot δὲ 
κλίμακας ---- καθίεσαν, (a) ἐσῆγον --- πρυμνήσια; et verba τῇ ξένῃ (qua de 


1 [From the American Journal of Philology, Vol. XIII (1892), p. 87.] 








Euripides 117 


probabili emendatione codicum verborum τὴν ξένην iam obiter dixi 
neque est cur longius disseram) et πρυμνήσια in versibus qui secuntur 
τῆς ξένης πρυμνησίων τε (1355-6) aptissime repetuntur. 


NOTES ΟΝ EURIPIDES’S PHOENISSAE. 


The recent publication of Professor Wecklein’s valuable edition 
of Euripides’s Phoenissae (Leipsic, 1894) has prompted me to put 
forth certain conjectural emendations upon the text of that play. 
For the sake of perspicuity and brevity I place the reading I would 
suggest at the head of each of the following notes: 


208-213. Ἰόνιον κατὰ πόντον ἐλά- 
τᾳ πλεύσασα περιρρύτων 
¢-% > ‘4 ’ 
ὑπὲρ ἀκαρπίστων πεδίων 
ἐναλέαις Ζεφύρου πνοαῖς, 
οὗ πνεύσαντος ἐν οὐρανῷ 


κάλλιστον κελάδημα. 


“Having sailed down the Ionian sea in a ship, over the watery 
(περιρρύτων) unharvested plains, by the sea-breaths of Zephyr whose 
breath in the sky causes fairest melody.”—V. 211 Σικελίας Wecklein 
with the MSS. V. 212 ἱππεύσαντος Wecklein with the MSS.—The 
emendation ἐναλίαις (which may be supported by Hel. 1459 sq. xara 
μὲν ἱστία πετάσατ᾽ av- | pas λιπόντες ἐναλίαις : we must remember too 
the Homeric expression that Euripides seems to have had in mind, 
ἀκραῇ Ζέφυρον κελάδοντ᾽ ἐπὶ οἴνοπα πόντον) helps to get rid of that trouble- 
some circumnavigation of the Peloponnese. Did Ἰόνιον πόντον help to 
bring in Σικελάς We naturally think of Πάφον in Bacch. 406.— 
The emendation οὗ πνεύσαντος makes the aorist participle intelligible 
in an ingressive sense. Wecklein’s comma after ἱππεύσαντος and 
change of οὐρανῷ to ἀρμένῳ do not satisfy. vs 

473-477. ἐγὼ δὲ---πατρὸς yap δόμων προὐσκεψάμην 

τοὐμόν τε καὶ τοῦδ᾽ -- ἐκφυγεῖν χρήζων ἀρὰς, 

ἃς Οἰδίπους ἐφθέγξατ᾽ εἰς ἡμᾶς ποτε, 

ἐξῆλθον ἔξω τῆσδ᾽ ἑκὼν αὐτὸς χθονὸς, 

δοὺς τῷδ᾽ ἀνάσσειν πατρίδος ἐνιαυτοῦ κύκλον, κτέ. 

Professor Wecklein reads δωμάτων with the MSS. in 473 and 
follows Hartung and Paley in bracketing v. 476. The awkwardness 


1[From the Classical Review, Vol. IX (1895), pp. 13-14.] 


% 


118 Greek Authors 


of this is patent—The corruption of yap δόμων to δωμάτων seems due 
(in part at least) to φαρμάκων in ν. 472. : 
504. ἄστρων ἂν ἔλθοιμ᾽ ἡ δέως πρὸς ἀντολὰς κτὲ. . 

The ἄστρων ἂν ἔλθοιμ᾽ ἡλίου of the MSS. is changed by Professor 
Wecklein to ἄνω τ᾽ ἂν ἔλθοιμ᾽ ἡλίου---ἃ desperate guess.—The corrup- 
tion ἡλίου seems chiefly due to A read as A. 

703 Sq. ἤκουσα μεῖζον αὐτὸν εἰς ἡμᾶς φρονεῖν, 
κήδει τ᾽ ᾿Αδράστου καὶ στρατῷ πεποιθότα. 

703. ἢ θήβας (for εἰς ἡμᾶς) MSS., ἢ θνητὸν Wecklein, after Kinkel. 
Professor Wecklein had also thought of εἰς Θήβας.----εἰς ἡμᾶς (for 
which a partial support is to be found in Hipp. 6 ὅσοι φρονοῦσιν εἰς 
ἡμᾶς μέγα) is palaeographically possible enough, a combination of 
uncial and minuscule blunders readily producing 4 Θήβας. The 
comparative too played its part. 

740 sq. τί δῆτα δρῶμεν ; ἀπορία yap, εἰ μενῶ. 

The ἀπορίαν yap οὐ μένω of the MSS. and Wecklein is certainly much 

less effective. The corruption is of a familiar type. 
747. ἀμφότερον: ἀπολη φθὲν yap οὐδὲν θάτερον. 

‘Both ; for either taken by itself is ποιῃϊηρ᾽.- --ἀμφότερον - ἀπολειφθὲν 
yap οὐδὲν θάτερον Μ133.., ἀμφότερ᾽ - ἕν ἀπολειφθὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν θατέρου Weck- 
lein. 

881-883. πολλοὶ δὲ νεκροὶ περὶ νεκροῖς πεπτωκότες, 

Said ips καὶ Καδμεῖα μ«. ε"»ἔξαντες μέλη, 
πικροὺς γόους δώσουσι Θηβαίᾳ χθονί. 

In v. 882 Professor Wecklein reads with the MSS. μίξαντες Ban. 
—The correction μέλη has already been suggested in the Critical 
Appendix to my edition of the A/cestis (on v. 304). 

947. οὗτος δὲ πῶλος τῇδ᾽ ἀνημμένος πόλει κτέ. 

Professor Wecklein, with the MSS., ἀνειμένος (‘hingegeben, darge- 
bracht’). Does not ‘attached to’ seem more natural in view of the 
context ? 

1134-1138. The following transposition (with one slight emen- 
dation) I venture to offer as a possible solution of a difficulty: 

ταῖς δ᾽ ἑβδόμαις "Ἄδραστος ἐν πύλαισιν ἦν 1134 
ὕδρας ἔχων λαιοῖσιν ἐν βραχίοσιν 1136 

᾿Αργεῖον αὔχημ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἐκπληροῦν γραφῇ 1137 and 1135 
ἑκατὸν ἐχιδνῶν - ἐκ δὲ τειχέων μέσων 1135 and 1137 


δράκοντες ἔφερον τέκνα Καδμείων γνάθοις. ; 1138 





Euripides 119 


1135. ἐκπληρῶν MSS. and Wecklein, ἐκπληροῦν Geel. The readings 
ἐχίδναις (under ἑβδόμαις) and ἐκπληρῶν might well be due to the posi- 
tion of v. 1135.—Professor Wecklein keeps the MSS. order but 
brackets γραφῇ and ἔχων λαιοῖσιν ἐν βραχίοσιν. ‘Die eingeschlossenen 
Worte,’ he writes, ‘welche die Konstruktion stéren, scheinen inter- 
poliert zu sein’. 

1193. ἔθρῳσκον ἐξέπιπτον ἀντύγων ἄπο, κτὲ 
ἔθνῃσκον, ἐξέπιπτον Wecklein with the MSS. 
1233 Sq. ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἀγῶν᾽ ἀφέντες οἰκείαν χθόνα 

νίσσεσθε κτέ. 
The best MSS. read ᾿Αργεῖοι χθόνα: two inferior MSS., ᾿Αργείαν 
χθόνα Professor Wecklein, adopting a conjecture of J. Weidgen, 
reads ᾿Αργεῖοι, πάλιν (for his opinion about the last word in v. 1232 
see the Appendix.)—In support of my conjecture I would cite 
Soph. Ant. 1203. ᾿Αργεῖοι seems due to v. 1238, just as in Eur. J. T. 
588 ἀγγεῖλαι is due to the occurrence of the same word in the same 
place in v. 582. (‘Apyeiav may well be, as Kirchhoff thought, a late 
correction, though possibly a gloss on οἰκείαν.) 


NOTES ON THE SUPPLICES. 


232-237. νέοις παραχθείς, οἵτινες τιμώμενοι 
χαίρουσι πολέμους τ᾽ αὐξάνουσ᾽ ἄνευ δίκης, 
φθείροντες ἀστούς, ὃ μὲν ὅπως στρατηλατῇ, 
ὃ δ᾽ ὡς ὑβρίζῃ δύναμιν ἐς χεῖρας λαβών, 
ἄλλος δὲ κέρδους οὕνεκ᾽, οὐκ ἀποσκοπῶν 
τὸ πλῆθος εἴ τι βλάπτεται πάσχον τάδε. 

This passage is interesting as an illustration of a feature common 
to Euripides and Thucydides, though by no means confined to 
them—the use of synonymous constructions which to their minds 
were evidently entirely equivalent. We have here three expres- 
sions of finality: (1) ὅπως στρατηλατῇ, (2) ὡς ὑβρίζῃ, (3) κέρδους 
οὕνεκα---ὡς (ὅπως) kepdaivy. Cf. such passages as Thuc. 1.37,4 (οὐχ ἵνα 

1‘ ἀργείαν, quod est Ald. et recentiorum, videtur etiam esse in Ὁ c. ea correctura 
mihi videtur manifesta’, writes Kirchhoff. The MS. c==Laurentianus (Kirch. 
Florentinus) 31, 10. Von Wilamowitz—Moellendorff (who designates it as O) gives 


a good account of this MS. in the case of the Hippolytus (see his edition of that play 
p- 181). I do not know whether Kirchhoff’s ‘videtur’ has been verified. 


2 [From ‘Euripidean Notes’, the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), pp. 150-152. 


120 Greek Authors 


μὴ ξυναδικήσωσιν----, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως---ἀδικῶσι, καὶ ὅπως --- βιάζωνται), 1. 73, I (οὐ 
---ἀντεροῦντες---, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως μὴ--- βουλεύσησθε, καὶ ἅμα βουλόμενοι---δηλῶσαιμ). 
The feature of style just noted, which is but one phase of a 
more general characteristic—a constant striving to vary the form 
of expression—is far-reaching in Thucydides and has been rightly 
described by Mahaffy, as it appears in the speeches, as “a crowding 
of curious and distorted aphorisms about some leading idea, which 
is reiterated in all sorts of forms”. I cannot accept Wilamomitz’s 
view, that the ‘“synonymik” of Prodicus was “seriously employed” 
by Thucydides (Eur. Herakl. 1, p. 27); for the peculiarity of Pro- 
dicus’s theory (vide Plat. Protag., particularly 337 A-C) is the hair- 
splitting tendency of all “synonymik”, whereas Thucydides uses a 
variety of expressions with (apparently) no conscious distinction; 
nay, he goes so far as to stretch the meaning of an expression or 
word in order to use it as a synonym for variety’s sake. Cf. e. g. 
Vi. 54, 3 ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἀξιώσεως (‘quantum pro sua auctoritate 
poterat’ Classen), where ἀξιώσεως = δυνάμεως is employed because 
of τὴν Ἱππάρχου δύναμιν just before. Thucydides is a synonym-monger 
in quite a different sense from Prodicus. What Thucydides has in 
common with Prodicus, Euripides and the other sophists, is rather 
an extreme self-consciousness in the use of language——To return 
to the passage in hand, it may be further noted that the MSS. 
reading πάσχον seems preferable to the emendation of Kirchhoff and 
Wilamowitz, πάσχει. Young men πολέμους αὐξάνουσι for various pur- 
poses: one, ὅπως στρατηλατῇ ; another, ὡς ὑβρίζῃ δύναμιν és χεῖρας λαβών; 
another to make gain. Why add πάσχει τάδεΡ He experiences, is 
made the victim of—what? Were such an expression as πάσχει τάδε 
to appear on a page of Thucydides in such a context, editors of the 
Cobetian school would long ago have enclosed it ‘uncis quadratis’. 
It should at least be πράσσει τάδε. It is the πλῆθος which suffers, 
βλάπτεται πάσχον τάδε, i. 6. the various ὕβρεις of the véo.—With this 
passage we may compare Thucydides vi. 12, 2 and also vi. 15 
(character of Alcibiades and the νεώτεροι). On our Euripidean 
passage Paley notes: “There can be little doubt, from the tone of 
this passage, that Euripides had some particular party or person in 
view, whom he regarded as chiefly responsible for the continuance 
of the disastrous war,—some Lamachus, Demosthenes or Cleon, 
whose ambitions he desired to rebuke”. The similarity of the pas- 


Euripides 121 


sages in Thucydides just cited to the verses of Euripides is strik- 
ing,—if nothing more. Cf. particularly τιμώμενοι χαίρουσι -- ἄρχειν 
ἄσμενος αἱρεθείς (Thuc. vi. 12, 2. cf. τιμῶμαι ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου ibid. 9, 2); οὐκ 
ἀποσκοπῶν τὸ πλῆθος Kré=Td ἑαυτοῦ μόνον σκοπῶν (Thuc. vi. 12, 2) ; 
κέρδους οὕνεκα---διὰ δὲ πολυτέλειαν καὶ ὠφεληθῇ τι ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς (Thuc. loc. 
cit,; the ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς is to be compared with ὅπως στρατηλατῇ in 
Eurip.) ; ὡς ὑβρίζῃ δύναμιν és χεῖρας λαβών = dv yap ἐν ἀξιώματι ὑπὸ 
τῶν ἀστῶν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις μείζοσιν ἢ κατὰ τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν οὐσίαν ἐχρῆτο ἔς 
τε τὰς ἱπποτροφίας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας δαπάνας (Thuc. vi. 15, 3). To endeavour 
to establish anything beyond an accidental resemblance between 
the Euripidean and Thucydidean passages would perhaps be unjus- 
tifiable. That there fis} however a striking} similiarity no one can 
deny. 

253-256. οὔτοι δικαστήν σ᾽ λων ἔργων ἐμῶν, 

οὐδ᾽ εἴ τι πράξας μὴ καλῶς εὑρίσκομαι 
τούτων κολαστὴν κἀπιτιμητήν, ἄναξ, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ὀναίμην. 

The variance of construction in this passage resembles that in the 
former and furnishes an excellent instance of final apposition. 
Moreover, it proves that the writer himself was conscious of the 
final force. (Of course the ‘final force’ of any subordinate construc- 
tion is not to be regarded as necessarily originally inherent in it.) 
Were we to attempt to bring the sentence before us into uniformity, 
we must either write ὡς βοηθόν (a word which Euripides does not, 


_I think, employ), or, better, ὡς δικάζοις ---- ὡς κολάζοις κἀπιτιμῴης, OF 


even employ fut. participles with és. It is not difficult to find other 
instances of final apposition, though I have no other example to cite 
in which the varying from final appositive to final clause shows the 
author so fully conscious of the finality in the appositional construc- 
tion. Cf.e. g. Thuc. i. 53, 4 βοηθοὶ ἤλθομεν (= βοηθοῦντες Or βοηθήσοντες 
ἤλθομεν: οἵ. ib. 63, 2 προῆλθον ὡς βοηθήσοντες) ; ib. 94, 1 στρατηγὺὸς---ἐξε- 
πέμφθη; ib. 95, 6 ἐκπέμπουσιν ἄρχοντα (cf. ib. 109, 2 πέμπει---ἄνδρα---, drws— 
ἀπαγάγοι). In all these cases, as well as in our Euripidean passage, a final 
clause containing the cognate verb in the subjunctive might easily have 
been written. Indeed, it is the verbal force felt in such substantives 
that renders them readily nominal equivalents of verbal expressions. 
One is surprised to observe that this mode of indicating finality 
finds no mention among the many varieties cited in the first section 


122 Greek Authors 


of Widmann’s excellent and careful dissertation De Finalium Enun- 
tiatorum Usu Thucydideo (Gott. 1875). 
899 sq. πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἐραστὰς κἀπο θηλειῶν ἡ ὅσας 
ἔχων κτέ. 
Canter emended ἴσας, which would naturally suggest itself to any 
one. Perhaps the MSS. reading is a contamination arising from a 


variant Ata ws (i. 6. ὁμῶς). 
1232. στείχωμεν, ᾿Αδρασθ᾽, ὅρκια δῶμεν. 
Equivalent to στείχωμεν, ἵν᾿ ὅρκια δῶμεν. An excellent survival of 
the paratactic construction out of which the final clause (in stricter 


sense) with subj. grew. This indicates the original hortatory 
character of this subjunctive. 


NOTES ON THE NOMINATIVE OF THE FIRST PERSON 
IN EURIPIDES.* 


The subject treated would be more accurately designated as the 
substantival nominative of the first person in Euripides. The current 
doctrine of the nominative persons in Greek is concisely put as 
follows in Hadley-Allen, § 603, a: “The only nominatives of the 
first person are ἐγώ, va, ἡμεῖς; of the second person, ov, σφώ, ὑμεῖς ; all 
other nominatives are of the third person.” But what should be said 
of such nominatives as θεὰ Κύπρις in Hipp..2? Such self-introducing 
and self-identifying nominatives of proper names as subjects of 
verbs in the first person are to be found also Androm. 5, 1232, Hee. 
3, 503, Troad. 2, Bacch. 2. In view of several of these passages one 
might be tempted to speak of such nominatives of proper names as 
autobiographical nominatives of the first person; but such a desig- 


nation would be too narrow. One naturally thinks of the familiar 


Latin “vita” form: Natus sum Iohannes Schmidt Berolini, where 
the prefixing of an “ego” by the writer is distinctly a πάρεργον. But 
this is in modern Latin; an instance or instances from the classical 
language may be found cited in a paragraph (1031) of the late 
Professor Lane’s Latin Grammar, which might well, it should seem, 
find its parallel in Greek Grammars. (To the examples in Lane 
1031, which includes both the first and the second person, might be 


1[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXII 
(1901), pp. xcix-ci.] 





Pe 


Euripides 123 


added Verg. Aen. 2, 677 sq.; 9, 22; Hor. Carm. 3. 1, 3-4; 3.9, 7-8; 
Ep. 9. 11; 16. 36; 17. 35.)—But attention is to be drawn here to 
several passages of a different sort in Euripides, some of which may 
be corrupt, some of which are commonly misinterpreted. In Alc. 167 
sq. we find μηδ᾽, ὥσπερ αὐτῶν ἡ τεκοῦσ᾽ ἀπόλλυμαι, | θανεῖν ἀώρους παῖδας, κτέ. 
This is the commonly—and justly—received text. But 5 (ΞΞ 1, 4π4 P) 
reads not ἀπόλλυμαι, but ἀπόλλυται. On this variance in reading the 
late Mr Hayley has an excellent note ad Joc. cit., in which, however, 
I should be inclined to substitute the words ‘could be—in the emen- 
dator’s opinion—directly the subject’ for “could be directly the 
subject”. In Alc. 317 sq. we read without variance in the verbs: 
οὐ γάρ σε μήτηρ οὔτε νυμφεύσει ποτὲ---οὔτ᾽ ἐν τόκοισι σοῖσι θαρσυνεῖ, 
τέκνον (text of S in 318). Here Lenting alone seems to have taken 
offence—and Lenting was no mean judge of Greek. In his Epistola 
Critica, p. 58, he writes: “Placeret mihi, νυμφεύσω | θαρσυνῶ. Vid. 
Musgrav. ad. vs. 165.” Musgrave’s parallel is, I believe, that given 
by Monk on v. 167, viz. Androm. 413 sq. The latter passage is 
closely parallel to Alc. 167, but it may well be thought that both it 
and that passage are sufficiently close to Alc. 317 sq. to justify 
Lenting’s suspicion that the first person is what Euripides wrote 
there. We shall then have three—or at least two—cases of a desig- 
nation of a parent used by that parent as subject of a verb in the 
first person. In Med. 926 Jason is made by Prinz to say of himself 
εὖ τὰ τῶνδε θήσεται πατήρ. Here εὖ τὰ τῶνδε and πατήρ are very plausible; 
hardly so θήσεται. Why may we not keep θήσομαι, which has support 
in the MSS.? (See Dr. Wecklein’s critical notes.) May we not 
also in Med. 915 fairly suspect that Euripides may have written not 
ἔθηκε but ἔθηκα, and tid. 918 ἐργάζομαι! And in 7. /. 1368 is not ἀπώλεσ᾽ 
to be understood as ἀπώλεσα not ἀπώλεσε >We come now to several 
instances of what may be called the genuine first person plural sub- 
ject. A good typical instance of this is Hipp. 450 ob (sc. "Epov = 
"Epwros) πάντες ἐσμὲν of κατὰ χθόν᾽ ἔκγονοι. (Like to this is τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἔργων 
τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ κάλλιστόν ἐσμεν ἄνθρωποι, ‘we human beings are the fairest of 
God’s works on earth,’ Joseph. Ant. Jud. 1, 21.) The following two 
examples from the Medea are commonly misunderstood and misin- 
terpreted: Med. 406-408 πρὸς δὲ καὶ πεφύκαμεν | γυναῖκες ἐς μὲν ἔσθλ᾽ ἀμη- 
χανώταται, | κακῶν δὲ πάντων τέκτονες σοφώταται, ‘and besides by nature too 
we women are for good deeds most awkward, but of all evil deeds most 


124 Greek Authors 


skilful artisans.’ (Here M. Weil rightly: “T'vvatxes est le sujet, et non 
le complément, de πεφύκαμεν.) Med. 889 sq. ἀλλ᾽ ἐσμὲν οἷόν éopev—ovn 
ἐρῶ xaxdv— | γυναῖκες, ‘but we women are what manner of thing we 
are—I will not say out and out a bad thing.’ As a parallel for the 
second person may be added in conclusion Med. 569-573—particu- 
larly 569 sq. ἀλλ᾽ és τοσοῦτον ἥκεθ᾽ ὥστ᾽ ὀρθουμένης | εὐνῆς γυναῖκες πάντ᾽ éxew 
νομίζετε, ‘but you women are come to such a pass that you think that 
when wedlock goes smoothly you possess everything.’ 


NOTES ON ANTISTROPHIC VERBAL RESPONSION IN 
ATTIC TRAGEDY-.'* 


Hermann’s words in the Elementa Doctrinae Metricae, p. 736 
(Leipsic ed. of 1816) = pars III. cap. XXIII. 5, were first quoted. 
Then, as an example of the use made by Hermann of the principle 
of antistrophic verbal responsion, his emendation of Aesch. Pers. 
280-283, by which the word δαίοις is brought into the position occu- 
pied by the same word in the antistrophe, was cited. The further 
restoration of this passage by Hermann, Heimsoeth, and Weil was. 
also briefly treated. Hermann’s attempt to restore Eur. Cycl. 359- 
376 was also touched upon, but regarded as uncertain. The example 
from the Persae was then emphasized as indicating the point of view 
taken up by the author of this paper in the study of antistrophic 
verbal responsion, viz. its value as an organon of methodical textual 
criticism. ; 

The following gradations of antistrophic verbal responsion were 
next noted: 1) repetition, word for word, of an entire choral pas- 
sage (Aesch. Eum. 778-793 = 808-823, ibid. 837-846 = 870-880) ; 
2) the use of ephymnia (not Sophoclean; chiefly Aeschylean, but 
found in Eur. Jon and Bacchae); 3) the use of prohymnia (not 
Sophoclean ; in Aesch. Ag. 1072 sq. = 1076 sq., and ibid. 1080 sq. = 
1085 sq.; in Eur. El. 112-114 = 127-129); 4) the use of mesymnic 
refrains (Aesch. Pers. 1040 = 1048, ibid. 1057 = 1063) ; 5) repeti- 
tion of the same interjection (or interjections) in the same place 
in strophe and antistrophe( corresponding to 2, 3, and 4 above, 
according to position) and the use of similar interjections or brief 
interjectional expressions in the same place in strophe and anti- 


Ὁ [From the Proceedings of’ the American Philological Association, Vol. XXVIII — 


(1897), pp. xi-xiv.] [It should be noted that what is printed here is only an abstract: 
of the paper itself.] ὃ 


Se eee ee 


Euripides 125 


strophe; 6) the occurrence of repeated words in the same place in 
strophe and antistrophe; 7) the occurrence of the same word (not 
interjection or interjectional) in the same place in strophe and anti- 
strophe (particles form a subdivision here); 8) the occurrence of 
different parts of the same word (different cases of the same noun, 
different forms of the same verb) in antistrophic correspondence; 
Ὁ) the occurrence of different words of a generally similar sound 
in antistrophic correspondence (e. g. ἄλοκι and ἔλακε, Aesch. Cho. 25 
and 35); 10) the occurrence of the same syllable or group of sylla- 
bles at the end, at the beginning, or in the middle of words in anti- 
strophic correspondence. (It is obvious that more than one of these 
divisions may be illustrated by the same example.) The last three 
divisions are those which require most careful attention, most exact 
weighing of collateral evidence, and greatest absence of bias for 
their ascertainment. 

The treatment of antistrophic verbal responsion by Dr J. H. H. 
Schmidt (Griechische Metrik, § 27) was next examined. Dr 
Schmidt, while denying to the Greek poets rhyme in the modern 
sense (what have frequently been treated as rhymes in classic Greek 
being, from his point of view, rhetorical rather than poetical phe- 
nomena, or even due to the exigencies of expression), emphasizes 
the existence of what he terms Strophenreime (strophic rhymes). 
The function of the strophic rhyme is to bind together strophes as 
rhyme binds together verses. Strophic rhyme consists, he says, not 
merely in single words, but in whole sentences—often only in ana- 
logous subject matter, in similarity of rhetorical construction. Dr. 
Schmidt cites examples in German from Rueckert and Arndt. 

In two points Dr Schmidt seems to go too far: 1) In absolutely 
denying rhyme, in the common acceptation of the term, to Greek 
poetry; 2) in stretching the term “strophic rhyme” to include like- 
ness of subject matter and of rhetorical construction. He excludes 
what would naturally pass for rhyme as rhetorical, and makes rhe- 
torical likeness pass for rhyme. Dr Otto Dingeldein’s treatment 
of Greek rhyme, in the common acceptation (Gleichklang u. Reim 
in antiker Poesie, progr. Buedingen, 1888), is far juster. In a lan- 
guage that readily lends itself to assonance and alliteration we must 
exercise care in distinguishing between the fortuitous and the inten- 
tional; but we must not deny the existence of the intentional. Again, 


126 Greek Authors 


the frequent presence of strophic rhyme in a narrower sense—what 
I have called antistrophic verbal (including syllabic) responsion— 
without close parallelism of thought should warn against a free 
extension of the term “strophic rhyme” to the domain of sense apart 
from sound. 

Dr Schmidt lays down the “law” of strophic rhyme as follows: 
The Greek strophic rhyme serves to mark passages that are rhyth- 
mically important, either at the beginning or at the close of a larger or 
smaller [rhythmical] division. The plausibility of this “law” needs 
no comment. In considering the several varieties of poetry in which 
strophic rhyme appears, Dr Schmidt notes its restricted use in 
Pindar. With him it consists of a single word, or at most a very 
brief sequence of words. Among the Tragedians Dr Schmidt finds, 
as we should expect a priort, a closer relation between Aeschylus and 
Euripides than between Aeschylus and Sophocles. (Attention has 
been called above to the most obvious differences between Sophocles 
and the other two Tragedians.) Though Sophocles, in the avoid- 
ance of the larger and more obvious forms of refrain, approaches 
the position occupied by Pindar, yet Dr Schmidt is inaccurate in 
making the use of strophic rhyme within the strophe (instead of at 
the beginning) a characteristic difference between the method of 
Sophocles and that of Aeschylus. A looser use of strophic rhyme 
in Euripides—the use of it as a mere traditional ornament in posi- 
tions of less emphasis—is what we might not improbably expect. 
However, Dr Schmidt finds Euripides generally strict. In Aris- 
tophanes he detects a tendency to avoid verbal responsion,—nay, 
more, to place like words and phrases in metrically unbalanced posi- 
tions. The few examples cited are striking, but the matter requires 
further examination. Thus far Dr Schmidt. 

In Sophocles there are examples (and they seem not to be entirely 
wanting in the other two Tragedians) of a modification, or relaxa- 
tion, at times of the stricter form of verbal responsion. The verbal 
parallel appears, not in the same, but in approximately the same 
position in the antistrophe. Philoct. 201 εὔστομ᾽ ἔχε, παῖξε210 ἀλλ᾽ ἔχε, 
τέκνον (quoted by Professor Kaibel on Soph. Electr. 1232, in a strik- 
ingly inadequate note on verbal responsion) may serve as an ex- 
ample. 


Returning to the important question of textual criticism involved, 


Euripides 127 


we may lay down the following principles: 1) Antistrophic verbal 
responsion must be carefully observed; 2) its certain or probable 
occurrence should guard the text against conjectural emendation ; 
3) when a slight (sometimes a more extensive) transposition of 
words will bring about verbal responsion, such transposition is 
generally to be resorted to without hesitation; 4) the discovery of 
verbal responsions may aid in rightly arranging a passage and in 
determining the presence of lacunae. Thus, on the one hand, a 
check is put upon wanton emendation, falsely so called ; on the other, 
we may proceed to a methodical and reasonably certain restoration 
of the original in many cases. 

Soph. Ant. 100-162 was then dealt with (the ἐπ νοῦ s restoration 
of v. 117 [see Class. Rev. 1X. (1895), p. 15]* being alluded to) ; also 
Ant. 1115-1135. In this latter passage the syllabic correspondence 
between Ἰταλών (1118) and Κασταλίας (1130) was held to be against 
the emendation of the former word to Ἰκαρών. 

The paper concluded with a mention of the following two points: 
1) In the famous passage Eur. 1. A. 231-302, commonly regarded as 
the work of an interpolator, verbal responsion is carefully observed, 
and must even be restored. (M. Weil has treated the passage rightly 
in detail.) 2) In the Rhesus 454-466 = 820-832. This wide separa- 
tion of strophe and antistrophe finds its parallel in Eur. Hipp. 
362-371 = 668-679 (as in the Rhesus, an antistrophic passage inter- 
venes), in Soph. Phil. 391-402 = 506-518 (no lyric passage inter- 
venes), in Eur. Orest. 1353-1365 = 1537-1549 (astrophic lyric 
verses and trochaic tetrameters between; cf. Rhes. 131-136 = 195- 
200 [only trimeters between]). But in Sophocles there is no verbal 
responsion ; in Euripides it is slight in the Hippolytus and confined to 
interjections ; in the Orestes it appears only at the beginning; in the 
Rhesus (both passages) the responsion may almost be termed exces- 
sive. The importance of this observation in the discussion of the 
date and authorship of the Rhesus is obvious. 


PORSON’S ENUNCIATION OF PORSON’S RULE.’ 
In regard to Porson’s famous rule about the fifth foot in a tragic 
trimeter ending in a cretic word, which is wrong as it stands, it was 


1 [See p. 47-] 
2[From ‘Miscellanea Critica’, Proceedings of the American Philological Associa- 
tion, Vol. XXXII (1901), p. xxviii.] [This note is given in abstract. ] 


128 Greek Authors 


suggested that Porson probably drafted the rule so that it ended 
quintus pes non spondeus esse deberet, but thinking it directer to 
use an affirmative rather than a negative turn of expression, care- 
lessly substituted for non spondeus the expression for what is nor- 
mally allowable in the first five places of the trimeter, viz. iambus 
vel tribrachys, forgetting that the final -.- made “vel tribrachys” 
an impossible addition. ; 


THUCYDIDES 
DE THUCYDIDES I. 1-23. 


Prooemium Thucydidis conscriptionis—sic enim συγγραφὴν inter- 
pretatam velim—ad eum tractare modum in animo habeo, ut partim 
singulos locos quam potero diligentissime examinare atque, si opus 
fuerit, emendare coner, partim ut quam in hac possessionis sempi- 
ternae particula componenda rationem secutus sit Thucydides et 
investigem et exponam. 

Ac primum quidem de primo capitulo haec habeo quae dicam. 
Primum in ipso initio post scriptoris nomen excidisse videri ὃ Ὀλόρου; 
nam ex corruptis Scholiastae verbis, id quod Stephanus primus ani- 
madvertit, hoc saltem evadere, ita hic proprium suum nomen com- 
memorasse Thucydidem, ut a cognominibus. se ipse distinxerit. At 
levius hoc fortasse neque longiore dignum disputatione; graviorem 
vero moverunt quaestionem qui pro ξυνέγραψε primam personam 
repositam voluerunt. Nam, si ξυνέγραψα amplexi erimus, sequitur 
ut pro ὁρῶν participio, quod constructionem verborum haud paulum 
impedit, facili negotio reponere possimus ἑώρων. At haec in incer- 
tarum numero coniecturarum habenda; multo certius—ne dicam 
certissimum—illud est, non ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους Thucydidem 
scripsisse sed ὃν ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, quae verba latine reddas, 
ratione habita sedis quam obtinet illud πρὸς ἀλλήλους, “quod inter ipsos 
gesserunt’. Sicut tradita nobis sunt verba ista varie possunt accipi, 
ut significent aut ‘ut <id bellum) inter ipsos gesserunt’ aut ‘ut inter 
ipsos bellum gesserunt’ aut ‘quo modo <id bellum) inter ipsos ges- 
serint’ aut ‘quo modo inter ipsos bellum gesserint’. At diligentius 
locum relegenti idoneam quidem sententiam ex eis interpretationibus 
tibi praebere debet nulla. Reducto ὃν pronomine τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Πελο- 
ποόννησίων καὶ ᾿Αθηναίων ὃν ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους nihil aliud significabit 
nisi ‘id bellum Peloponnesiorum et Atheniensium, quod inter ipsos 
gesserunt’, quibus verbis quam optime significatur quod appellari 
solet Bellum Peloponnesiacum. In insequentibus καὶ particulam 
inter καθισταμένου εἰ ἐλπίσας infertam et ipsi Thucydidi abiudicandam 
censeo. Praeterea digna est quae attendatur suspicio quam in com- 

1 [From the American Journal of Philology, Vol. XXVI (1905), pp. 441-454-] 


130 Greek Authors 


mentario Classeno-Steupiano verbis expressam legimus de lacuna 
statuenda post τῶν προγεγενημένων. Debuit sane Thucydides τῶν προ- 
γεγενημένων Ἑλληνικῶν πολέμων scribere. Vix necesse habeo dicere 
ante és αὐτὸν non ἦσαν me sed ἦσαν verum habere. Hic quasi 
in transcursu significare mihi liceat in verbis quae sunt τὸ δὲ καὶ 
διανοούμενον non habere καὶ particulam quo suo quidem iure referatur. 
Quid si non sic scripsit Thucydides sed plene τὸ δὲ καὶ «αὐτὸ» 
Savoovpevov? Ante verba quae sunt κίνησις γὰρ αὕτη μεγίστη δὴ τοῖς 
Ἕλλησιν ἐγένετο facere non possumus, si recte cogitamus, quin subaudi- 
amusS καὶ ὀρθῶς ἤλπισα μέγαν τε ἔσεσθαι τοῦτον τὸν πόλεμον Kai ἀξιολογώτατον 
τῶν προγεγενημένων Ἑλληνικῶν πολέμων vel tale quid. Violentissima est 
sane ellipsis, sed yap particula apud Thucydidem saepe numero valde 
elliptice usurpatur. In insequentibus non possum non cum Steupio 
facere verba καὶ μέρει... . ἀνθρώπων suspectante. Certe importunis- 
sime inferta sunt ea verba. In verbis quae proximam obtinent sedem 
re vera obaeravit, ut ita dicam, Thucydidis studiosos Herbstius pro 
Ta yap πρὸ αὐτῶν reposito τὰ yap Tpwixa. Hoc loco haud absurde for- 
tasse animadvertero yap particulam ideo positam esse ut introducat 
ratiocinationem cur dixerit Thucydides κίνησιν ταύτην μεγίστην δὴ τοῖς 
Ἕλλησι γενέσθαι, quo modo usurpatae yap particulae exempla minime 
desunt. Cetera minutiora quae commemoratione haud indigna in 
hoc capitulo obvia sunt ut recenseam, haud dubium mihi quidem 
videtur quin ἀδύνατον ἦν alteri scripturae, quae est ἀδύνατα ἦν, prae- 
ferendum sit; neque spernenda erat Cobeti coniectura elegantissima 
pro obscuro et impedito illo ὧν ἐπὶ μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοι πιστεῦσαι 
ξυμβαίνει οὐ μεγάλα νομίζω γενέσθαι planum atque apertum hoc ὡς ἐπὲ 
μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοι πιστεῦσαι ξυμβαίνει οὐ μεγάλα γενέσθαι reponentis. 

Eo iam prorepsimus unde Herbstii acumine hic saltem felicissimo 
usis ac totius prooemii ratione habita latius nobis prospicere liceat. 
Nam si quis diligentius legerit neque ambagibus scriptoris seductus 
a summa rerum oculos detorserit, sic ab initio prooemium a Thucy- 
dide adumbratum ess¢ aut perspiciet aut certe perspicere debebit, ut 
primum capitulum cum vicesimo tertio artissimo esset vinculo con- 
iunctum. Quae tamen duo capitula tam late nunc sunt distracta, ut 
nemo, quod sciam, veram quae eis inter sese intercedit rationem 
perspexerit neque mendum correxerit quod initium capituli vicesimi 
tertii deturpat. Ut planam legentibus rem efficiam atque apertam, 
primi capituli finem et vicesimi tertii initium, utrumque mendis pur- 


Thucydides 131 


gatum, hic ob oculos proponam. Ecce igitur in unum coniuncta quae 
diu fuerant separata: 
τὰ γὰρ Τρωϊκὰ καὶ τὰ ἔτι παλαίτερα σαφῶς μὲν εὑρεῖν διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος 
ἀδύνατον ἦν, ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων ὡς ἐπὶ μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοι πιστεῦσαι 
ξυμβαίνει οὐ μεγάλα γενέσθαι οὔτε κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα. 
τῶν δὲ ὕστερον ἔργων μέγιστον ἐπράχθη τὸ Μηδικόν, καὶ τοῦτο ὅμως 
ταχεῖαν τὴν κρίσιν ἔσχε, τούτου δὲ τοῦ πολέμου μῆκός τε μέγα προύβη, KTE. 

Prooemium $Suum postquam sic adumbravit’ Thucydides, quam 
brevem ac simplicem formulam utrum litteris consignaverit necne 
incertum, illa τεκμήρια τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀσθενείας quae in τὰ γὰρ Tpwika ... 
οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα 5101 praesto esse indicaverat proponere instituit idque 
ordine qui dicitur chiastico; nam primum τὰ ἔτι παλαίτερα et τὰ ἄλλα, 
deinde τὰ Τρωϊκὰ et τοὺς πολέμους exponit. Ea omnia capitibus 2-12 
continentur, quibus capitibus quae proferuntur artissime sunt inter 
se connexa. Liquet igitur, admirabili sane sagacitate Bekkerum post 
duodecimum demum capitulum spatio vacuo relicto maiorem disputa- 
tionis divisionem finitam indicasse. 

Capitibus 13-19 quae continentur neque cum capitibus 2-12 uni- 
versam prooemii rationem si spectes, cohaerent neque hercle cum 
capite 20. Satis manifestum esse debet caput 20 una cum maiore 
parte capitis 21 post conscripta capita 2-12 adiectum esse, ut caput 
23 longissimo iam intervallo a capite 1 disiunctum apte introducere- 
tur. In secunda igitur quam statuo prooemii formula caput 12 capite 
20 exceptum fuisse credo. Secundae prooemii formae ratio per 
numeros sic potest indicari: I—12 + 20—21. 1 + 23. 

Quod 21. 2 cum 22 seclusi, id ea de causa feci quod ista verba cum 
proxime praecedentibus nullo vinculo sunt connexa. Additamentum 
videntur esse ipsius Thucydidis quod cum reliquo prooemio num- 
quam rite copulavit. Melius omnino se haberet haec particula inter 
23. 3 et 23. 4 inserta, sed ne tum quidem prorsus idoneum eam locum 
inventuram fuisse persuasum habeo. 

De tertia quam nunc habemus prooemii forma in universum qui- 
dem quod dicam nil habeo praeter ista quae aliud agens iam protulli. 
Hic erat vero fortasse locus aliquid iniciendi quod in superiore mea 
disputatione neglexi. Nam significare me oportuit ex collocatione capi- 
tum 1 et 23 vel apertius apparere quanto iure Herbstius Tpwiké pro 
πρὸ αὐτῶν introduxerit. Neque enim necessario sequeretur ut magnum 
fuisset Bellum Peloponnesiacum, si quaecunque id praecessissent, . 


112 Greek Authors 


ea omnia οὐ μεγάλα fuissent οὔτε κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε és τὰ ἄλλα. 
Coniuncto demum cum antiquioribus bellis Persico illo atque utrisque 
cum Peloponnesiaco comparatis evadit id quod Thucydides demon- 
strare studebat. Addendum fortasse erat desiderare me in Herbstii 
vel potius Thucydidis τὰ yap Tpwixa inter τὰ et yap illud μὲν quo inserto 
oppositionem quam ego indicavi planius appareret; sed particulam 
desideratam dubito tamen inserere. Nunc ad capita 2-12 et in 
universum et particulatim excutienda me accingam.‘ 

Ac primum quidem illud attendendum est, in capitibus 2 et 3 anti- 
quarum rerum Graecarum imbecillitatis duas adferri causas, quarum 
altera migrationes (μεταναστάσεις), altera civitatium inter sese com- 
mercii defectus (dueéia) fuit. In fine capitis tertii summatim indicat 
Thucydides etiam Bellum Troianum ex maiore maris usu pependisse, 
cuius sententiae e demonstratione quae in capitibus 4-8 continetur 
initium capiunt, quibus capitibus rei navalis Graecorum qui fuerit 
ante Bellum Troianum status luculenter exponitur. Nunc ad minu- 
tiora animum adpellamus. 

In capite 2 igitur suspectum aliquantum mihi est illud ra πρότερα, 
quippe quo post πάλαι non opus sit. In commentario Classeno- 
Steupiano post οὖσαι desideratur ἑκούσιαι. Id minus verum mihi 
videtur, qui integritatem huius loci hoc pacto restitutam velim: 
ἀλλὰ μεταναστάσεις τε οὖσαι Kal ῥᾳδίως ἕκαστοι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀπολείποντες <Exdv- 
τες τε καὶ» βιαζόμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν αἰεὶ πλειόνων. Cur αἵ τε δυνάμεις τισὶ μείζους 
ἐγγιγνόμεναι στάσεις ἐνεποίουν AC NON potius al... μείζους γιγνόμεναι στάσεις 
ἐνεποίουν scripserit Thucydides, si re vera sic scripsit, equidem dispi- 
cere nequeo. Verba quae sunt τὴν γοῦν... αὐξηθῆναι insulso interpre- 
tamento deturpata esse puto. Integrum locum sic se habuisse arbi- 
tror: 

τὴν γοῦν ᾿Αττικὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον διὰ τὸ λεπτόγεων ἀστασίαστον 
οὖσαν ἄνθρωποι ᾧκουν οἱ αὐτοὶ αἰεὶ καὶ παράδειγμα (exemplum) τοῦδε 
τοῦ λόγου (1. 6. eorum quae in proxime praecedente enuntiato 
dicta sunt) οὐκ ἐλάχιστόν ἐστι (SC. ἡ ᾿Αττική) - ἐκ yap τῆς ἄλλης 
Ἑλλάδος xré. 

In capite 3 pro τῶν παλαιῶν ἀσθένειαν fortasse rescribendum « τὴν» 
τῶν παλαιῶν ἀσθένειαν. In insequentibus ξύμπασά πω ἔχειν correxit 
Reiske, πολλοῦ γε χρόνου καὶ ἅπασιν ἐκνικῆσαι van der Mey, recte uterque. 
3. 3 sic fortasse scribendum : πολλῷ γὰρ ὕστερον ἔτι καὶ τῶν Τρωϊκῶν 
γενόμενος οὐδαμοῦ τοὺς ξύμπαντας «Ἕλληνας» (suppl. Matthiae) ὠνόμασεν 





Thucydides 133 


οὐδ᾽ ἄλλους ἢ τοὺς μετ᾽ ᾿Αχιλλέως ἐκ τῆς Φθιώτιδος, οἵπερ καὶ πρῶτοι ἦσαν, 
Δαναοὺς δὲ... ἀνακαλεῖ (Si sana scriptura in verbo ultimo). Quae ista 
excipiunt praestat fortasse hunc ad modum scribere: οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ Bap- 
βάρους εἴρηκεν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ διὰ τὸ μηδ᾽ Ἕλληνάς πω ἀντίπαλον és ὄνομα 
ἀποκεκρίσθαι - οἱ δ᾽ οὖν Ἕλληνες ὕστερον κληθέντες οὐδὲν πρὸ τῶν Τρωϊκῶν δι᾽ 
ἀσθένειαν καὶ ἀμειξίαν ἀλλήλων ἁθρόοι ἔπραξαν. In verbis οἱ δ᾽ οὖν... 
κληθέντες quae omisi, ea adeo sensum impediunt, vix ut vera esse 
possint. 

Initio capitis quarti yap particula valde elliptice, ut saepe, usurpa- 
tur. Subauditur huius modi quid: τῆς δὲ θαλάσσης és χρῆσιν κατέστησαν 
τόνδε τὸν τρόπον. In insequentibus recte Cobetus ἐκάθηρεν pro tradito 
καθήρει reposuit. 

In capitis quinti initio scribendum est, nisifallor, hunc ad modum: 
ot yap Ἕλληνες τὸ πάλαι καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων <twés>, οἵ τε ἐν τῇ ἠπείρῳ 
παραθαλάσσιοι καὶ ὅσοι νήσους εἶχον, kré. uae causa adductus sic cor- 
rigendum esse existimem, planius ‘apparebit ex eis quae de ἐλήζοντο 
δὲ καὶ κατ᾽ ἤπειρον xré. infra sum disputaturus. In insequentibus in- 
clino ad faciendum cum Herwerdeno illud ναυσὶν quod est inter 
περαιοῦσθαι et ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλους damnante. Perperam in editionibus quas 
curaverunt Classenus et Steupius virgula omittitur inter ἀδυνατωτάτων 
et κέρδους ; nam verba quae sunt κέρδους... τροφῆς quam artissime cum 
ἐτράποντο πρὸς λῃστείαν Coniungenda sunt, cum illud ἡγουμένων... 
ἀδυνατωτάτων per medium, quod aiunt, sit. 5. 2 vix dubium esse 
potest quin cum Reiskio οἷς ἔτι καὶ viv pro tradito ἔτι καὶ viv οἷς re- 
ponendum sit. In οἷς τ᾽ ἐπιμελὲς εἴη εἰδέναι, ubi optativus vix ac ne 
vix quidem intellegi potest, omittendum censeo εἴη. 

In c. 6. 3 et cc. 7-8 de re piratica fusius agitur, i. 6. quae inc. 5. I 
summatim significata sunt, ea hic enucleatius exponuntur. Atten- 
tiore animo haec legenti aut apparebit aut apparere debebit ea quae 
c. 5. 3 legimus cum c. 8. I artissime cohaerere ita ut καὶ κατ᾽ ἤπειρον et 
καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον λῃσταὶ ἦσαν of νησιῶται 5656 invicem excipiant. Appare- 
bit autem c. 8. 1 in falsam nunc sedem detrusum esse, cum ea verba 
inter cc. 6 et 7 reponenda sint. Veram eam, ut credo, consecutionem 
in sequenti disputatione observabo. Nunc ad c. 6 redeamus. 

Totum hoc capitulum ab extremis capitis 5 verbis initium capit, 
quae verba sunt τό re σιδηροφορεῖσθαι τούτοις τοῖς ἠπειρώταις ἀπὸ THs παλαιᾶς 
λῃστείας ἐμμεμένηκε. Sed hic quoque in γὰρ particula ellipsin offendimus; 
cogitando enim suppleamus oportet post verba quae modo laudavi vel 
οὐδὲ τούτοις μόνον τὸ σιδηροφορεῖσθαι ξύνηθες ἦν τὸ πάλαι vel tale quid. 


134 Greek Authors 


Facto demum supplemento sine salebra procedet disputatio. Atque 
initio capitis recte fortasse Hude pro ἐσιδηροφόρει, quam scripturam 
praebent codices Thucydidei, ἐσιδηροφόρουν substituit, quam scripturam 
aliunde cognitam habemus. Eadem huius capitis sectione suo iure 
videtur Herwerdenus τὴν ξυνήθη δίαιταν μεθ᾽ ὅπλων ἐποιήσαντο pro trala- 
ticio illo ξυνήθη τὴν 8. μ. ὅ. ἐς Per eius correctionis occasionem ani- 
madverto ἐποιήσαντο aoristum non alia de causa usurpatum videri nisi 
quod cum ξυνήθη cogitatione coniunctus idem valet atque εἰώθεσαν 
ποιεῖσθαι aut, id quod simplicius etiam est, éroodvre, Neque tamen 
inde recte concludas ξυνήθη adiectivum in praedicativa quae dicitur 
sede recte hoc loco collocari posse. In insequentibus cum Reiskio 
omnino faciendum σημεῖον δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ (pro ταῦτα) τῆς Ἑλλάδος κτέ. 

In ς. 6. 3 transitus fit ab armis militaribus ad vestitum, unde c/6. 5 
facillimo descensu ad nuditatem devenimus. Hac in sectione verum 
vidit Reiskius, qui pro πέπαυται reposuit réravvra; neque falsus videtur 
fuisse Cobetus verba quae sunt περὶ ra αἰδοῖα excludens. Eadem sec- 
tione equidem minime intellegere possum quae continuo insecuntur, 
nisi hoc pacto rescribuntur: ἔτι δὲ καὶ viv ἐν τῶν Βαρβάρων ἔστιν ols—xai 
μάλιστα τοῖς ᾿Ασιανοῖς---πυγμῆς καὶ πάλης ἄθλα τίθεται xré. Tralaticia verba 
quam perversissima sunt. Absoluto iam excurso de armis et vestitu 
ad δεύτερον πλοῦν de re piratica redeamus. 

In priore igitur parte capitis octavi (καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον .. . ἔτι θάπτουσι), 
quam summo, ut persuasum habeo, iure huc transtuli, de insulanis 
agitur latronibus. Hac in particula extrema subditicium mihi videtur 
ξυντεθαμμένῃ (v. 1. ξυντεθαμμένοι) participium. Certe non necessarium est 
participium sententiamque magis impedit quam expedit. In imse- 
quentibus melius sane rem suam gessisset Thucydides, si plenius 
scripsisset καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς ταφῆς (vel καὶ τῆς ταφῆς τῷ τρόπῳ) ᾧ KTE. 

Caput 7 cur hic collocaverit Thucydides, ex c. 5.1 apparebit, ubi 
praedones πόλεσιν ἀτειχίστοις diripiendis operam dedisse certiores fimus. 
Hoc in capite singula si spectes, haec digna videntur quae notentur. 
In τῶν δὲ πόλεων ὅσαι μὲν νεώτατα φκίσθησαν καὶ ἤδη πλωϊμωτέρων ὄντων VIX 
verum potest esse illud νεώτατα quippe quod nil aliud significet nisi 
καὶ ἤδη πλωϊμωτέρων ὄντων, quae verba interpretationis instar usitatis- 
simo modo per καὶ particulam subiunguntur. Reponendum censeo 
νεώτερον. In insequentibus praestat fortasse τῆς πρὸς τοὺς προσοίκους 
ἕκασται (NON ἕκαστοι) ἰσχύος scribere. Mox ἔφερον yap < καὶ ἦγον» ἀλλήλους 
rescriptum usitatam atque, ut videtur, unice veram scribendi ra- 








Thucydides 135 


tionem reducat. Extremo capitulo ἄνω ὠκισμέναι, quam scripturam 
Reiskii acumen restituit, non fuit iterum relegandum. 

C. 8. 2 partim reditus fit ad ea quae c. 4 continentur, partim 
initium capitis 7 respicitur; nam hic et c. 8. 3 ea iterantur quae 
priore dimidio capitis 7 continentur. Atque comparatis duobus eis 
locis haec apparent: primum c. 7 perperam Herwerdenum τείχεσιν 
ἐκτίζοντο καὶ τοὺς ἰσθμοὺς ἀπελάμβανον in ἐκτίζοντο καὶ τείχεσιν τοὺς ἰσθμοὺς 
ἀπελάμβανον mutatum voluisse. Nam inter sese respondent c. 7 ἤδη 
πλωϊμωτέρων ὄντων et C. 8.2 πλωϊμώτερα ἐγένετο παρ᾽ ἀλλήλους, C. 7 περιου- 
σίας μᾶλλον ἔχουσαι χρημάτων Εἴ C. 8. 3 μᾶλλον ἤδη τὴν κτῆσιν τῶν χρημάτων 
ποιούμενοι, C. 7 τείχεσιν ἐκτίζοντο et C. 8. 3 τείχη περιεβάλλοντο. Huc 
accedit quod c. 7 verba quae sunt ἐμπορίας τε ἕνεκα καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς προσ- 
οίκους ἕκασται ἰσχύος chiastice praecedentia excipiunt, ita ut ex una 
parte τοὺς ἰσθμοὺς ἀπελάμβανον ἐμπορίας ἕνεκα (Cf. 6. 2. 6 ᾧκουν δὲ καὶ Φοίνικες 
περὶ πᾶσαν μὲν τὴν Σικελίαν ἄκρας τε ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ τὰ ἐπικείμενα νησίδια 
ἐμπορίας ἕνεκεν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς Σικελούς, unde etiam apparet minus diligenter 
Thucydidem τοὺς ἰσθμοὺς ἀπελάμβανον scripsisse), ex altera autem parte 
τείχεσιν ἐκτίζοντο τῆς πρὸς τοὺς προσοίκους ἕκασται ἰσχύος (SC. ἕνεκα) CON- 
iungere oporteat. Hinc discimus etiam—nam manus, ut aiunt, ma- 
num lavat—quo modo ea quae c. 8. 3 τείχη περιεβάλλοντο excipiunt et 
intelligenda sint et emendanda. Ac primum quidem verba quae sunt 
ὡς πλουσιώτεροι ἑαυτῶν γιγνόμενοι, quae idem valent atque μᾶλλον ἤδη 
τὴν κτῆσιν τῶν χρημάτων ποιούμενοι atque in quibus offendit non modo 
αὐτοὶ ante ἑαυτῶν omissum sed etiam importunissimum illud as, haec 
verba Thucydidi abiudicanda censeo. At quorsum pertinet illud 
ἐφιέμενοι γὰρ xré.? atque qua tandem de causa sunt adiecta haec 
verba? Responsum nobis reddet, nisi fallor, c. 7, unde discimus 
haec verba eidem notioni exprimendae inservire atque ἕνεκα τῆς πρὸς 
τοὺς προσοίκους ἰσχύος. Ut planius quid dicere velim significem, ra- 
tionem reddunt ea verba cur τινὲς etiam τείχη περιβαλέσθαι dicantur, 
videlicet quod προσεποιοῦντο ὑπηκόους Tas ἐλάσσους πόλεις. Comparet nunc 
verba quae sunt περιουσίας ἔχοντες perversum esse interpretamentum a 
quopiam antiquitus ad δυνατώτεροι appositum, Thucydidem autem non 
nisi of re δυνατώτεροι προσεποιοῦντο ὑπηκόους Tas ἐλάσσους πόλεις SCrIpSisse. 
Ad finem iam relati sumus capitis octavi, ubi per καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ 
μᾶλλον ἤδη ὄντες ὕστερον χρόνῳ ἐπὶ Τροίαν ἐστράτευσαν ea verba et respici- 
untur et iterantur quibus c. 3 clauditur atque ad Bellum Troianum, 
quod ibi in eo erat ut tractaretur, fit tandem reditus. 


136 Greek Authors 


Capitibus 9-12 ita de Bello Troiano agitur ut capite 9 Agamem- 
nonis potentia ostendatur, capite 10 demonstretur τὴν στρατείαν ἐκείνην 
μεγίστην μὲν γενέσθαι τῶν πρὸ αὐτῆς, λειπομένην δὲ τῶν νῦν, capite II causa 
adducatur pecuniae inopia (ἡ ἀχρηματία), capite 12 quasi quodam 
epilogo etiam post Bellum Troianum migrationes (μεταναστάσεις ) 
tales quales capite 2 erant descriptae diu factas esse dicatur unde 
evenerit ut multae coloniae deducerentur. Huius capitis in fine, 
quasi sese excuset quod fines disputationis de antiquo Graeciae statu 
antiquorumque Graecorum rebus gestis transgressus sit, haec addit 
Thucydides: πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ὕστερον τῶν Τρωϊκῶν ἐκτίσθη. Nunc ad 
caput 9 redeamus. 

Capitis 9 initium mendo parvo quidem sed haud ita levi laborare 
mihi videtur, neque recte processuram arbitror orationem nisi hunc 
ad modum repurgetur: ᾿Αγαμέμνων γάρ μοι δοκεῖ. xré. Sectione se- 
cunda verissime, nisi fallor, pro of τὰ σαφέστατα Πελοποννησίων... . . 
δεδεγμένοι Hude coniecit οἱ σαφέστατα τὰ TI. ...8. In insequentibus 
pro πλήθει χρημάτων ἃ ἦλθεν... ἔχων equidem reposuerim πλήθει χρημά- 
των ὃ ἦλθεν... ἔχων. Post ξυνενεχθῆναι quae constructio ex simplici 
genetivo absoluto acta est, ea in formam vere portentosam evasit — 
quasi vires acquirens eundo. Simplicior ea forma haec fere sit: 
Εὐρυσθέως μὲν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αττικῇ ὑπὸ Ἡρακλειδῶν ἀποθανόντος, ᾿Ατρέως δὲ τῶν 
Μυκηναίων τε καὶ ὅσων Εὐρυσθεὺς ἦρχε τὴν βασιλείαν παραλαβόντος καὶ τῶν 
Περσειδῶν τοὺς Πελοπίδας μείζους καταστήσαντος (Nam quiN pro κατα- 
στῆναι reponendum sit καταστῆσαι vix dubium esse existimo). Im 
peditior vero quam nunc apud Thucydidem legimus participialis huius 
clausulae forma sic videtur scribenda ac distinguenda: Pipers 
μὲν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αττικῇ ὑπὸ Ἡ ρακλειδῶν ἀποθανόντος, ᾿Ατρέως δέ, μητρὸς ἀδελφοῦ 
ὄντος αὐτῷ, ἐπιτρέψαντος Εὐρυσθέως, ὅτ᾽ ἐστράτευε, Μυκήνας τε καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν 
κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον ᾿Ατρεῖ---τυγχάνειν δὲ αὐτὸν φεύγοντα τὸν πατέρα διὰ τὸν 
Χρυσίππου θάνατον---καί, ὡς οὐκέτι ἀνεχώρησεν Εὐρυσθεύς, βουλομένων καὶ τῶν 
Μυκηναίων φόβῳ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν καὶ ἅμα δυνατὸν «αὐτὸν > δοκοῦντα εἶναι 
καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τεθεραπευκότα τῶν Μυκηναίων τε καὶ ὅσων Εὐρυσθεὺς ἦρχε τὴν 
βασιλείαν ᾿Ατρέα παραλαβεῖν καὶ τῶν Περσειδῶν τοὺς Πελοπίδας μείζους κατα- 
στῆσαι. Hac in formula illud ᾿Ατρέως prorsus pendet, constructio 
autem e participiali fit infinitivalis. In sectione tertia legendum 
videtur τὴν στρατείαν, ob χάριτι τὸ πλεῖον « τὸν στόλον» ἢ φόβῳ ξυνα- 
γαγών, ποιήσασθαι. In insequentibus autem πρὸς παρασχών cum Scho- 
liasta et Herwerdeno legendum. Haec verba in codicibus sequitur 





ae Sa 


Thucydides 137 


clausula hunc ad modum leviter reficienda: ὡς Ὅμηρος τοῦτό «τε-:- 
δεδήλωκεν, εἴ τῳ ἱκανὸς τεκμηριῶσαι, καὶ ἐν τοῦ Σκήπτρου ἅμα τῇ Παραδόσει 
εἴρηκεν κτξ. Priusquam ad decimum caput pergam addendum esse 
censeo cum eis me facere qui pro καὶ ναυτικῷ τε ἅμα veram Scrip- 
turam καὶ ναυτικῷ ye ἅμα reposuerunt. 

In capitis 10 sectionibus 1-2 praecavere studet Thucydides, ne ex 
Mycenarum aliarumve antiquarum urbium fama nobilium parvitate 
imbecillas eas fuisse falso concludamus. Comparatione igitur insti- 
tuta praesentis condicionis Spartae Athenarumque et eius quae esset, 
si utraque urbs diruta esset, sic concludit (sect. 3) οὐκ οὖν ἀπιστεῖν 
εἰκὸς οὐδὲ τὰς ὄψεις τῶν πόλεων μᾶλλον σκοπεῖν ἢ Tas δυνάμεις, νομίζειν δὲ THY 
στρατείαν ἐκείνην μεγίστην μὲν γενέσθαι τῶν πρὸ αὐτῆς, λειπομένην δὲ τῶν νῦν---- 
τῇ Ὁμήρου αὖ ποιήσει εἴ τι χρὴ κἀνταῦθα πιστεῦσαι (ubi aperte respicit 9. 
3, ubi legimus ὡς Ὅμηρος τοῦτό <re> δεδήλωκεν εἴ τῳ ἱκανὸς τεκμηριῶσαι, 
‘si cui idoneus est testis’, ubi fortasse legendum εἴ τῳ ἱκανὸς « ἐκεῖνος -- 
τεκμηριῶσαι, ‘Si Cui idoneus ille testis’). Haec omnia pendent ex 
εἰκάζειν δὲ χρὴ καὶ ταύτῃ TH στρατείᾳ ola ἦν τὰ πρὸ αὐτῆς (Q. 4) atque, ex 
parte certe, ideo addita vel potius inserta sunt, ut demonstretur 
incorrupti Thucydidem iudicis munere fungi. Nunc ad minutiora 
animum adpellamus. Ac primum quidem haud equidem dispicere 
possum in καὶ ὅτι μὲν Μυκῆναι xré. quid opus sit μὲν, quae particula 
mea quidem opinione multo meljis abesset. Infra recte videtur 
Hude Λακεδαιμονίων « μὲν» yap scripsisse. Neque minus bene idem 
vir doctus cum 4115 ξυνοικισθείσης « τῆς > πόλεως Corrigendum censet. 
Sectione 3 quae πιστεύειν secuntur equidem sic scripserim : ὃν (sic 
Cobetus) εἰκὸς ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον μὲν « αὐτὴν» ποιητὴν ὄντα κοσμῆσαι. Sectione 4 
in transcursu notandum est τὰς μεγίστας καὶ ἐλαχίστας negligentius 
dictum pro ras πλείστους καὶ ἐλαχίστους ἐχούσας. Idem valet de eisdem 
verbis sect. 5 iteratis. Infra aut pessime scripsit Thucydides aut 
sic est corrigendum: ἄλλως τε καὶ μελλόντων πέλαγος περαιώσεσθαι μετὰ 
σκευῶν πολεμικῶν οὐδ᾽ αὖ τὰ πλοῖα κατάφαρκτα ἐχόντων. Nam non de 
περίνεῳς hic sermo, sed de universo Graecorum exercitu. De quo 
loco vide quae adnotavit Poppo. 

Capite 11 recte cum aliis Cobetus μάχῃ ἐκρατή «(θη)» σαν... dai- 
vovrat οὐδ᾽ ἐνταῦθα infraque aeque ,recte idem vir doctus ῥᾳδίως ἂν μάχῃ 
κρατοῦντες, of ye kal οὐκ ἀθρόοι (debuit οὐχ ἁθρόοι) ἀλλὰ μέρει τῷ αἰεὶ παρόντι 
ἀντεῖχον, πολιορκίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν προσκαθεζόμενοι ἐν ἐλάσσονί τε χρόνῳ (-- εἰ δὲ πολιορ- 
kia προσεκαθέζοντο, ἐν ἐλάσσονί τ᾽ ἂν χρόνῳ) καὶ ἀπονώτερον τὴν Τροίαν εἷλον--- 
ubi vix opus est animadvertere ἐλάσσονι idem valere atque ἐλάσσονι 


138 Greek Authors 


TOU τῷ ὄντι γενομένου, ἀπονώτερον autem idem atque ἐλάσσονι πόνῳ ἢ ὅσον 
ἔσχον. Recte inquam sic scribendum censuit Cobetus, nisi forte 
praestat, id quod minus obscurum intellectu locum redderet, post 
ῥᾳδίως inserere μὲν atque pro Τροίαν scribere πόλιν. 

Capiti 12, cui cum praecedentibus quae ratio intercedat supra 
demonstravi, μετανίστατο καὶ κατῳκίζετο mihi quidem tralaticiae scrip- 
turae videtur praestare. Neque dubium esse debet quin ἡσυχάσασαν 
αὐξηθῆναι falso sit scriptum pro ἡσυχάσασα αὐξηθῆναι. Sect. 2 cum eis 
facio qui pro τὰς πόλεις reposuerunt ἄλλας πόλεις. Sect. 3 yap perperam 
damnavit Steupius, cum recte se habeat particula modo-ne ad prox- 
ime praecedentia referatur. Nam non cum sect. 2 cohaeret sect. 3 
sed cum sect. I, ut suspicio mihi orta sit secundam illam sectionem 
(7 τε yap... ἔκτιζον) serius demum a Thucydide additam esse. Utut 
res se habet, sublatis eis verbis multo melius in unum coalescunt 
reliqua. Eadem sect. 3 comparato sequente illo Πελοπόννησον ἔσχον 
praestat τὴν viv μὲν... ᾧκησαν quam ᾧκισαν scribere. At ecce oblitus 
sum de ἐπεὶ particula quae hoc caput aperit aliquid dicere: oportebat 
autem; nam cum eadem ellipsi ea particula hic usurpatur quam 
saepius in yap animadvertimus. Subauditur οὐδὲ τὰ πρὸ τῶν Τρωϊκῶν 
μόνον ἀσθενῆ Hv Vel eius modi quid. Atque antequam cetera excutere 
pergo, haud absurdum erit indicare quam apte in disputatione quae 
capitibus 2-12 continetur cum initio cohaereat finis. Quam clara 
enim voce hoc μόλις τε ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ ἡσυχάσασα ἡ Ἑλλὰς βεβαίως 
καὶ οὐκέτι “μετ:ξῷανισταμένη (ut equidem scriptum velim) me- 
moriam redintegrat illius φαίνεται yap ἡ viv Ἑλλὰς καλουμένη οὐ πάλαι 
βεβαίως οἰκουμένη, ἀλλὰ μεταναστάσεις οὖσαι. 

Capitum 13-19 post capita 2-12 una cum 20-21.1 dudum absoluta, 
quam longo vero temporis intervallo incertum, conscriptorum id est 
consilium, ut quos profectus fecerint quasque res gesserint cum 
universi Graeci tum praecipue Lacedaemonii Atheniensesque inter 
confectas iam migrationes et coortum Bellum Peloponnesiacum sum- 
matim ostendatur. Haec disputatio in partes divisa est duas, quarum 
prior τὰ Τυραννικά, posterior autem τὰ μετὰ τὰ Τυραννικὰ complectitur. 
Illa capitibus 13-17, haec 18-19 continetur. Atque initio capitis 13 
duae res factae narrantur postquam aliquid aucta sit Graecia po- 
tentia et pecunia, primum ut in plerisque ex civitatibus tyrannides 
instituerentur, deinde ut ad rem navalem magis Graeci animum 
adtenderent. Quae sic ab ipso Thucydide proferuntur: Avvarwrépas 


ΨΥ στ το οπν' 





Thucydides 139 


δὲ γιγνομένης τῆς Ἑλλάδος καὶ τῶν χρημάτων τὴν κτῆσίν τι (Krueger pro ἔτι) 
μᾶλλον ποιουμένης τὰ πολλὰ τυραννίδες ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν καθίσταντο---πρότερον 
δὲ ἦσαν ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς γέρασι πατρικαὶ βασιλεῖαι---ναυτικά τε ἐξηρτύετο ἡ Ἑλλὰς 
καὶ τῆς θαλάσσης μᾶλλον ἀντείχετο (quae verba ex Herwerdeni sententia 
correcta exhibui). Hine usque ad finem capitis 14 de re navali 
Graecorum quae tyrannis imperantibus fuit disputatur. Capite 15 
terrestri re bellica eiusdem aetatis summatim tractata tandem per 
occasionem causarum commemorandarum quae obstabant quominus 
consociatis viribus fortiores evaderent maiores civitates, quae com- 
memoratio adlatis exempli causa Ionibus capite 16 fit, ad tyrannos 
redit narratio, quorum de maligno plerumque imperio capite 17 
exponitur. Haec est in universum distributio satis perversa illa 
quidem eorum quae capitibus 13-17 narrantur. Ad minutiora nunc 
redeamus. 

Atque de 13. I quomodo codicum scripturam emendemus oportere 
arbitrer supra demonstravi, nunc sectiones 2 et 3 quattuor locis a 
me ad pristinam, ut opinor, integritatem revocatas exhibebo: πρῶτοι 
δὲ KopivOior λέγονται ἐγγὺς (codd. ἐγγύτατα, quod idoneum quidem sen- 
sum hic praebet nullum) τοῦ viv τρόπου μεταχειρίσαι τὰ περὶ Tas ναῦς καὶ 
τριήρεις πρώτῃ (Codd. πρῶτον) ἐν Κορίνθῳ τῆς Ἑλλάδος (--πρώτῃ τῆς 
Ἑλλάδος ἐν Κορίνθῳ) ναυπηγηθῆναι- φαίνεταί τε (codd. δὲ) καὶ Σαμίοις 
᾿Αμεινοκλῆς Κορίνθιος ναυπηγὸς (codd. ναῦς hic inserunt) ποιήσας τέσσαρας, 
ἔτη δ᾽ ἐστὶ xré. Sectione 5 quo modo distinguenda—vel potius non 
distinguenda—essent verba quae sunt τῶν Ἑλλήνων... ἐπιμισγόντων 
vidit Camperus ; ea verba ideo potissimum infra exscripta exhibebo 
ut menda tollam duo. Ecce locus repurgatus : τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸ πάλαι 
κατὰ γῆν τὰ πλείω τῶν τε ἐντὸς TOD ᾿Ισθμοῦ Kal τῶν ἔξω διὰ τῆς ἐκείνων παρ᾽ 
ἀλλήλους ἐπιμισγόντων (Ξετῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸ πάλαι κατὰ γῆν τὰ πλείω παρ᾽ 
ἀλλήλους ἐπιμισγόντων τῶν τε ἐντὸς τοῦ ᾿Ισθμοῦ καὶ τῶν ἔξω διὰ τῆς ἐκείνων 
τοῦτο ποιούντων). ‘In fine eiusdem sectionis sic rescriptum velim: 
ἐπειδή τε of Ἕλληνες μᾶλλον ἔπλῳζον, Tas ναῦς κτησάμενοι Kal « Td > ἐμπόριον 
παρέχοντες ἀμφότερα δυνατὴν ἔσχον χρημάτων προσόδῳ τὴν πόλιν. In sec- 
tione 6 quod traditum habemus καὶ Ῥήνειαν ἑλὼν ἀνέθηκε τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι 
τῷ Δηλίῳ, id sic scribendum censeo: καὶ ‘P. ἑ. ἀνῆκε (Herwerdenus) τῷ 
᾿Απόλλωνι (Omisso τῷ Δηλίῳ tanquam interpretamento illius τῷ articuli 
qui illi ᾿Απόλλωνι praefixus est). 

Quae c. 13. 2-6 continentur δα “τὰ παλαιὰ ναυτικὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων perti- 
nent insequente vero capite ad τὰ ὕστερον γενόμενα ναυτικὰ transitur. 


140 Greek Authors 


Caput 14 saepe numero satis graviter corruptum emendare sum 
conatus ad hunc modum: Δυνατώτατα ταῦτα τῶν «παλαιῶν.» ναυτικῶν 
jv: φαίνεται δὲ καὶ ταῦτα, πολλαῖς γενεαῖς ὕστερον γενόμενα τῶν Τρωϊκῶν, 
τριήρεσι μὲν ὀλίγα (SIC Cobetus pro ὀλίγαις) χρώμενα, πεντηκοντέροις δ᾽ ἔτι 
καὶ πλοίοις μακροῖς ([. μικροῖς : v. Kruegerum) ἐξηρτυμένα ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνα " 
ὀλίγοις γὰρ πρὸ τῶν Μηδικῶν καὶ τοῦ Δαρείου θανάτου, ὃς μετὰ Καμβύσην 
Περσῶν ἐβασίλευσε, τριήρεις περί τε Σικελίαν τοῖς τυράννοις ἐς πλῆθος ἐγένοντο 
καὶ Κερκυραίοις. Ταῦτα τελευταῖα πρὸ τῆς Ξέρξου στρατείας ναυτικὰ ἀξιόλογα 
ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι κατέστη - Αἰγινῆται γὰρ (quasi praecesserit εἰκότως δὲ 
ἀξιόλογα εἶπον vel tale quid) καὶ ᾿Αθηναῖοι καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι βραχέα ἐκέκτηντο 
καὶ τούτων τὰ πολλὰ πεντηκοντέρους - ὀψὲ γὰρ ἀφ᾽ οὗ (haec duo vocabula 
melius fortasse cum Kruegero secluseris) ᾿Αθηναίους Θεμιστοκλῆς 
ἔπεισεν, Αἰγινήταις πολεμοῦντας Kal dua τοῦ βαρβάρου προσδοκίμου ὄντος, Tas 
ναῦς ποιήσασθαι αἷσπερ καὶ ἐναυμάχησαν, <at> καὶ αὐταὶ οὕπω εἶχον διὰ 
πάσης καταστρώματα. 

C. 15. 1 scribendum cum Valckenaerio et Cobeto οἱ προὔχοντες αὐτοῖς 
et mox ἐπιπλέοντες γὰρ ταῖς νήσοις (Cf. 6. 1. I ἐπὶ Σικελίαν πλεύσαντες κατα- 
στρέψασθαι) κατεστρέφοντο μάλιστα ὅσοι μὴ κτὲ. (Nisi forte post ταῖς in- 
serendum ἐπικειμέναις : V. Commentarium Steupio-Classenianum). (Ὁ. 
15. 2 legendum ὅθεν <yé> τις καὶ δύναμις περιεγένετο (quod verbum pro 
παρεγένετο SuMMO iure restituebat cum aliis Tournier: cf. supra 
active ἰσχὺν περιεποιήσαντο). Hic infelicissima Siesbyei coniectura (v. 
Hudei ed. mai.) pro καὶ δύναμις reponentis κἂν δύναμις monuit me 
principii Platonis Phaedonis, ubi in simili verborum contextu ἄν par- 
ticula falso traditur. Atque operae pretium me facturum arbitror, 
si locum illum emendatum hic exscripserim. Sic igitur Plato scrip- 
sisse videtur—nisi forte primae iam chartae ita obdormivit ut graece 
iam non sciret: καὶ yap οὔτε τῶν πολιτῶν οὐδεὶς πάνυ τι ἐπιχωριάζει τὰ νῦν 
᾿Αθήναζε οὔτε τις ξένος ἀφῖκται ἐκεῖθεν ὅστις ἡμῖν σαφές τι ἀγγεῖλαι οἷός τ᾽ ἢν 
περὶ τούτων πλήν γε δὴ ὅτι φαρμάκου πιὼν ἀποθάνοι - τῶν δὲ ἄλλων οὐδὲν εἶχον 
φράζειν. (57 A-B). At tempus ad Thucydidem redeundi. Reliquo 
igitur capite 15 nil aliud habeo quod moneam nisi me cum Herwer- 
deno facere πολὺ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑαυτῶν secludente. 

In sexto decimo autem capitulo ἡ Περσικὴ βασιλεία vix minus falsa 
mihi quidem videtur scriptura quam -4 Περσικὴ éovoia. Verum habeo 
ἡ Περσικὴ δύναμις. In insequentibus πρὸς θάλασσαν Thucydidi abiudi- 
candum videtur. 

In capite 17 legendum conicio τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν < ἕκαστοι." μόνον προορώ- 
μενοι. In insequentibus verissime mihi videtur Cobetus reposuisse 





ta 


Thucydides 141 


ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν pro ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, neque dubito quin non εἰ μή τι sed εἰ μὴ εἴ τι, 
‘nisi si quid’, verum sit. Atque verba quae sunt οἱ γὰρ... δυνάμεως 
recte a compluribus damnata existimo, quippe quae ex additamento 
marginali profecta videantur ab aliquo adscripta qui memoria teneret 
supra (c. 14. 2) a Thucydide relatum esse τριήρεις περί te Σικελίαν 
τοῖς τυράννοις ἐς πλῆθος ἐγένοντο καὶ Kepxvpaious—nisi forte propius 
veritatem Cobetus contigit, qui μόνοι γὰρ οἱ ἐν Σικελίᾳ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον 
ἐχώρησαν δυνάμεως rescribere iussit. 

Capitibus 18 et 19, uti supra demonstratum est, τὰ μετὰ τὰ Τυραννικὰ 
comprehenduntur: at illa ra pera τὰ Τυραννικὰ nihil aliud re vera sunt 
nisi historiola maxime summatim adumbrata magnarum illarum 
duarum societatum a Lacedaemoniis et Atheniensibus utrimque fac- 
tarum. His in capitibus haud ita multa apparent quae manum emen- 
datricem desiderent ; nam 7 Μαραθῶνι μάχη (18.1) pro ἡ ἐν Μαραθῶνι μάχη 
alii iam reposuerunt atque Herwerdenus in fine capitis 18 πολεμικὰ 
pro πολέμια revocavit. Recte autem Stephanus 18. 2 δὴ ἐφάνη reduce- 
bat. Quibus correctionibus nil habeo quod addam nisi initio capi- 
tis 18 pro καὶ πρὶν τυραννευθείσης me rescribendum censere καὶ <airis> 
τυραννευθείσης. Ad ἃ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τῇ αὐτῇ πολιτείᾳ χρῶνται quod attinet, 
quam scripturam pro ἀφ᾽ od. . . χρῶνται codex Μ et Hermogenes prae- 
bent, non dubium est quin verum esse oporteat, quod tamen magis 
Graecum quam Thucydideum ne sit equidem vereor. Inter caput 20 
una cum capitis 21 sectione 1 et capita 2-12 quae ratio intercedat satis 
iam est supra demonstratum. Hac in particula prooemii nil habeo 
quod novi afferam nisi levissimam correctionem illius rod μὲν ἀπέ- 
gxovro, pro quo paene efflagitatur <rov>rov μὲν ἀπέσχοντο. Ex 
alienis hic coniecturis haec accipio: 20. 1 wav τι (Krueger) ἑξῆς 
τεκμηρίῳ πιστῶσαι (Reiske) ; ibid. ὅμως pro ὁμοίως (Cobetus) ; 20. 2 
τῶν Πεισιστράτου... αὐτοῦ omittendum (Cobetus) ; 21.1 <ot> a διῆλθον 
(Weil) ; ibid. αὐτῶν secludendum (Herwerdenus). 

De 21. 2 et 22 satis iam in universum disputavi. Minutiora vero 
adnotabo haec. 22. 1 sic scribendum esse conicio : Χαλεπὸν Cpev > τὴν 
ἀκρίβειαν αὐτὴν διαμνημονεῦσαι et ἄλλοθέν ποθέν μοι. 22.2 καὶ <Ta> παρὰ 
(Ullrich) τῶν ἄλλων ὅσῃ δυνατὸν ἀκριβείᾳ κτέ. 22. 4 et ipse post ἔσεσθαι 
sententiam hiare arbitror. De supplemento vide commentarium 
Classeno-Steupianum. Ceterum in fine capitis 22 Cobetus ἀκούειν 
damnavit neque id iniuria ut mihi videtur. Quid si notissimum illud 
enuntiatum sic ab initio est perscriptum: κτῆμα yap és αἰεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ 
ἀγώνισμα és TO παραχρῆμα ξύγκειται ? 


142 Greek Authors 


De capite 23 in universum satis iam supra disputavi neque praeter 
iteratam commendationem illius ὕστερον quod in τῶν δὲ ὕστερον ἔργων 
pro πρότερον a Thucydide scriptum esse persuasissimum equidem 
habeo atque in medium prolatam suspicionem 23. 6 rescribendum 
esse τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἡγοῦμαι μεγάλους γεγενημένους - φόβον «γὰρ» παρέ- 
χοντας τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις ἀναγκάσαι ἐς τὸ πολεμεῖν ne verbulum quidem 
amplius addam, sed longae finis chartae hic erit.’ 


EPIMETRUM DE THUCYDIDIS DE /Z/AD/S H FINE 
TESTIMONIO.? ᾿ 


Constare aut certe post ea quae in septima e suis de Iliadis car- 
minibus dissertationibus luculentissime disputavit Arminius Koechly 
(v. eius Opuscc. Philol. I. 121-152) constare oportet, quo Iliadis H 
loco Graecorum ad Troiam bellum gerentium classis subductae pro- 
pugnaculi constructio describitur—qui locus a versu 313 initium 
capere videtur—, eum “vel recentissimo”—ipsis ut utar Koechlyi 
verbis (op. cit., p. 151)—“imitatori adscribendum” esse. Quo autem 
tempore quoque consilio recentissimus ille imitator centonarium 
suum opusculum Iliadi contexuerit, inde satis certo scire possumus 
quod, cum Zenodotus, id quod e Scholiis discimus, in suis Iliadis 
exemplaribus hance quoque particulam legerit atque etiam—quod 
multo gravius est—Plato Rp. v. 468 D versum 321 citaverit, Thucy- 
didi is locus ignotus fuit. Nam de Graecorum ad Troiam rebus 
gestis sic incipit agere Thucydides (1. 11. 1.) : ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀφικόμενοι μάχῃ 
ἐκρατή <0n >cav—djrov’* δέ τὸ yap ἔρυμα τῷ στρατοπέδῳ οὐκ ἂν ἐτειχίσαντο----, 

1'Sero intellexi 11. 2 hunc ad modum scribendum esse: περιουσίαν δ᾽ εἰ ἦλθον 
ἔχοντες τροφῆς καὶ ὄντες ἀθρόοι ἄνευ λῃστείας καὶ γεωργίας ξυνεχῶς τὸν πόλεμον διέφερον, 
ῥᾳδίως ἂν (δὴ }) μάχῃ κρατοῦντε: ---οἵ γε καὶ οὐχ ἁθρόοι ἀλλὰ μέρει τῳ αἰεὶ παρόντες ἀντεῖχον 
(ἀντέσχον 3)---πολιορκίᾳ ἂν προσκαθεζόμενοι ἐν ἐλάσσονί τε χρόνῳ καὶ ἀπονώτερον τὴν Τροίαν 

τὴν πόλιν") εἷλον, i.e. abundantia autem si venissent instructi commeatus et coniuncti 
sine latrocinio et agricultura perpetuo id bellum gessissent, facile proelio superiores 
facti—quippe qui etiam non coniuncti sed cum parte <tantum> aliqua semper prae~ 
sentes <tamen> restiterint—obsidione instituta et breviore temporis spatio et minore 
cum labore Troiam cepissent. εἷλον quod fuit post κρατοῦντες et δ᾽ post πολιορκίᾳ 
primus, quod sciam, damnavit Krueger ; rw indefinitum praebet scholion ; παρόντες 
ipse detexi. Loco eminente positum et cum intentione vocis proferendum illud 
ῥᾳδίως. 

*[This MS. article, dated April 6, 1905, forming a supplement to the preceding 
paper, was preliminary to an extensive investigation of the Homeric Question which 
Professor Earle had in view. ] 

*Emendavit Thiersch : v. Popponem ad loc. 





Thucydides 143 


, 1 
φαίνονται 


οὐδ᾽ ἐνταῦθα πάσῃ τῇ δυνάμει χρησάμενοι κτὲ. Quem ad locum qui 
scholium de ἔρυμα vocabulo scripsit munimentum non id intellegit cuius 
de exstructione apud nostrum Homerum H 337 sqq. mentio fit sed 
πρότερον μικρότερον διὰ Tas τῶν Βαρβάρων ἐπιδρομάς : quibus ex verbis elucet 
ideo illud μικρότερον ἔρυμα ultro hominem istum finxisse quod non de 
decimo sed de primo belli Troiani anno apud Thucydidem hic agi patet. 
Neque hercle esse potest hoc loco ut Iliadis H respexerit Thucy- 
dides, nisi forte—id quod in talem virum minime cadit—temporis 
rationem atque etiam rerum narrationem prorsus neglexit. Unde 
sequitur ut eam Iliadis partem ubi muri constructio describitur 
Thucydides non habuerit cognitam. Neque vero ullam omnino de 
illius Graecorum propugnaculi exstructione narrationem apud 
Homerum legisse videtur Thucydides. Nam si quis cuius de rei 
confectione descriptionem vel manibus terit vel aliquo tempore 
lectam memoria retinet, ne ille minime de eius rei originatione quasi 
prorsus sibi ignota disputabit atque concludet. Quod tamen ipsum 
facit Thucydides dum sic scribit: δῆλον δέ (sc. Graecos ad litora 
Troiana postquam adpulerint a Troianis proelio superatos esse). 
τὸ γὰρ ἔρυμα (i.e. illud propugnaculum quod quasi iam dudum 
aedificatum alibi in Iliade [cf. M 7 una cum Leafii adnotatione ad 
loc.] commemoratum invenimus) τῷ στρατοπέδῳ οὐκ ἂν ἐτειχίσαντο. 

Hine apparet Cobetum, quem maxima semper cum reverentia 
nomino, summo iure Thucydidis τὸ ἔρυμα de nota omnibus ex Iliade 
castrorum munitione intellexisse, iniuria autem hac in re [liadis H 
337-341 citasse; cf. Mnemos. n. s. 8. 69. In transcursu autem 
memoro haud prorsus verum esse quod Cobetus ibidem scripsit, 
quidquid de bello Troiano scripserit Thucydides ab uno Homero 
sumptum esse; nam de agris in Chersoneso a Graecis belli tempore 
cultis ne verbum quidem nostra in Iliade comparet. At id minus 
ad rem de qua nunc agitur pertinet. 

Summam ut subducam disputatiunculae huius meae, satis apparet 
qua de Iliadis H parte agitur eam Thucydidi prorsus ignotam fuisse ; 
unde sequi ut post id demum tempus quo verba supra citata scripsit 
Thucydides ea particula Iliadi qualem nos novimus adtexta sit. 
Id satis diu ante conscriptum a Platone quintum Rei publicae librum 
esse factum a citatione supra commemorata satis probabile fit. Ac 
ne quis forte ¢ litteram istis in versibus ad hiatum evitandum 


1 φαίνονται 5’ codices : emendavit Cobet. 


144 Greek Authors 


adsciscendam mihi obiciat, addo quibus septem locis (vv. 356, 371, 
375, 413, 429, 444, 465) eiusmodi hiatus apparet, eos omnes versibus 
formulisve aliunde translatis explicationem atque excusationem 
accipere facillimam. Unum amplius addo: ad summam quaestionis 
qua de nunc agitur nihil omnino interesse utrum falsum_illud 
ἐκράτησαν retineatur apud Thucydidem an pro eo verum hoc éxpary- 
θησαν revocetur.’ 


CRITICAL NOTES-ON- THUCYDIDES. 


VI, 31. 42. ξυνέβη δὲ πρός τε σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἅμα ἔριν γενέσθαι, [ᾧ τις 
ἕκαστος προσετάχθη] καὶ ἐς τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας ἐπίδειξιν μᾶλλον εἰκασθῆναι 
KTE. 

The words bracketed are unnecessary, disturbing and obscure. 
May they not have crept into the text from a scholion at the close 
of the preceding sentence, to which the first clause of the above 
forms an ἐπανάληψις, the scholion in its original form running some- 
what as follows: Τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα σκευῶν] of μὲν ὁπλῖται ὅπλα εἶχον, of 
δὲ ἐρέται καὶ τέκτονες καὶ λιθουργοὶ τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ἐργαλεῖα <@ τις ἕκαστος 
προσετάχθη > ? 

VI, τι. 2.5 Σικελιῶται δ᾽ ἄν μοι δοκοῦσιν, ὡς ye νῦν ἔχουσι, καὶ ἔτι ἂν 
ἧσσον δεινοὶ ἡμῖν γενέσθαι, εἰ ἄρξειαν αὐτῶν Συρακόσιοι, κτὲ. 

After ἔχουσι Classen indicates a lacuna; Herbst admires the ellip- 
tical form of expression and scouts the idea of a lacuna. Both 
scholars supply the omission in the same way: οὐ δεινοὶ εἶναι, appar- 
ently ignoring the fact that Σικελιῶται δ᾽ ἄν μοι δοκοῦσιν οὐ δεινοὶ εἶναι is 
a strange way of saying Σικελιῶται δ᾽ οὔ μοι δοκοῦσι δεινοὶ εἶναι. So 
much for the German Greek: let us turn to Thucydides himself. 
The sentence (face Herbstii) demands a negative near its head in 
order to yield any proper sense as it stands: the material for sup- 
plying the ellipsis is ready to hand in δεινοὶ ἡμῖν γενέσθαι: the clauses 
may have been dislocated. In fine why not read thus: Σικελιῶται δ᾽ 
«(οὐκ)» ἄν μοι δοκοῦσιν, ὥς ye νῦν ἔχουσι, δεινοὶ ἡμῖν γενέσθαι, καὶ ἔτι ἄν 


bs nr 
ἧσσον, εἰ ἄρξειαν αὐτῶν Συρακόσιοι, κτὲ. ? 


1 Rationem quae Thuc. 1. 11. 1 cum Iliad. H intercedit leviter perstrinxit Seeck in 
libro inscripto Die Quellen der Odyssee p. 418. Seeckio Thucydides ceterique 
eiusdem aetatis scriptores atque poetae audisse a rhapsodis carmina Homerica viden- 
tur, legisse non videntur. At quis facile credat haec ? 

? [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), p. 227.] 

* [From ‘Miscellanea Critica’ in Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p. 1.] 


Thucydides 145 


VI, 17. 3... I would read thus: 6, τι δὲ ἕκαστος ἢ ἐκ τοῦ λέγων πείθειν 
οἴεται ἢ στασιάζειν ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ λαβών xré. The Scholiast’s para- 
phrase εἴτε ἐκ τοῦ λόγῳ πείθειν περιγένοιτο αὐτῷ τὸ λαβεῖν, εἴτε ἐκ τοῦ 
στασιάζειν shows the reading στασιάζειν to be ancient. 

VII, 13. 2.5 Legendum τῶν ναυτῶν <airav> μὲν xré. 


YILOCTAYPOYN.’ 


Qui ita equitat ut suus cursus alienum oblique secet, is ὑπελαύνειν 
dicitur: cf. Xen. Anab. I. 8.15 ubi perversum illud πελάσας ab editori- 
bus prudentibus optimo iure semper spretum esse denuo nuper 
ostendit Pantazides. Item qui ita murum aut vallum in obliquum 
ducit ut alterum murum aut vallum impediat quominus producatur, 
is ὑποτειχίζει aut ὑποσταυρο. At hercle, dixerit quispiam, istud 
ὑποσταυροῦν nusquam apud scriptores graecos apparet. Fateor, ut 
quidem nunc se habent libri; sed reddendum est Thucydidi VI. 101, 
ubi scribendum esse censeo, καὶ of Ξυρακόσιοι ἐν τούτῳ ἐξελθόντες καὶ αὐτοὶ 
ὑπεσταύρουν' αὖθις ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως διὰ μέσου τοῦ ἕλους, καὶ τάφρον 
ἅμα παρώρυσσον, ὅπως μὴ οἷόν τε ἢ τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις μέχρι τῆς θαλάσσης 
ἀποτειχίσαι. 


1 [From ‘Miscellanea Critica’ in Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p- 1.] 

2{This emendation was presented at the meeting of the American Philological 
Association, July, 1898, but was never published. ] 

8[From Mnemosyne, Vol. XX XIII (1895), p. 153.] 

4 Codd. ἀπεσταύρουν. 


ji Po GOP 


PLATONIS THRASYMACHUS, 
SIVE 
REI PUBLICAE LIBER PRIMUS." 


327 A Primum Platonem scripsisse opinor hunc in modum: 
Κατέβην χθὲς εἰς Πειραιᾷ pera Γλαύκωνος τοῦ ᾿Αρίστωνος 
προσευξόμενός τε τῇ θεῷ καὶ ἅμα τὴν ἑορτὴν βουλόμενος θεά- 
σασθαι, θεωρήσαντες δὲ καὶ προσευξάμενοι ἀπτῇμεν πρὸς ἄστυ... 

tum autem post θεάσασθαι, quasi ἰδεῖν fuerit, addidisse : 
τίνα τρόπον ποιήσουσιν ἅτε νῦν πρῶτον ἄγοντες. Καλὴ μὲν 
οὖν μοι καὶ ἡ τῶν sis, fae πομπὴ ἔδοξεν εἶναι, οὐ μέντοι 
ἧττον ἐφαίνετο πρέπειν ἣν ot Θρᾷκες ἔπεμπον. 
quibus verbis additis participiorum ordinem commutasse, ut 
inde ab initio narrationis usque ad principium insequentis 
enuntiati precationis et spectationis notiones chiasmi in modum 
sese exciperent. 

327 B In verbis quae sunt Κατιδὼν οὖν et quae secuntur usque ad 
κελεῦσαι ita a Platone mutationem factam esse opinor, ut, cum 
scripsisset hoc pacto : 

Kareide δὲ πόρρωθεν ἡμᾶς οἴκαδε ὡρμημένους Πολέμαρχος is 
Κεφάλου: ἐκέλευσεν οὖν δραμόντα τὸν παῖδα περιμεῖναί € 
κελεῦσαι... 
ad maiorem—ut ei videbatur—concinnitatem contextus pro priore 
illo verbo finito participium substitueret, hoc modo: 
Κατιδὼν οὖν. .. . ἐκέλευσε κτέ. 

327 Β Πολέμαρχος περιμεῖναι <€> scribendum esse censeo. 

327 C Verba quae sunt ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς πομπῆς aut, ut in Π sunt, ἀπὸ 
τῆς πομπῆς non Platonis esse puto sed ab aliquo homine ad verba 
ὡς ἀπιόντες in Margine adposita esse. 

327 C Scribendum esse censeo: 

Οὐκ οὖν, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ἔτι ἐν ἐλλείπεται (= ere ἕν ἐστιν ὅπερ καὶ 
ἐλλείπεται), τὸ ἢ πείσωμεν ὑμᾶς ὡς χρὴ ἡμᾶς ἀφεῖναι ; 

328 A Post θεάσασθαι audiendum videtur esse ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς θεασόμεθ᾽ 
αὐτὴν vel tale quid. Insequitur enim ἐξαναστησόμεθα yap xré. 


ΔΓΜ. paper.] 


Plato 147 


Non dubitaverim equidem quin scribendum sit καὶ ξυνεσόμεθά 
γε πολλοῖς τῶν νέων κτὲ, ; Ca enim cum adulescentibus conversatio 
praecipua fuit quasi esca ad Socratem alliciendum. Cuius pro- 
pensionis Socratis Glauco minime ignarus facete sane pro eo 
respondet (328 B) : Ἔοικεν μενετέον εἶναι. 

328 B καὶ δὴ καὶ Θρασύμαχον τὸν Καλχηδόνιον : inducitur protagonista. 

328 C διὰ χρόνου γὰρ καὶ ἑωράκη αὐτόν : tempus verbi a forma nega- 
tivi enuntiati explicandum, quae forma fuisset : συχνὸν γὰρ χρόνον 
οὐδ᾽ ἑωράκη αὐτὸν vel tale quid. 

τεθυκὼς yap ἐτύγχανεν : an etiam τεθυκὼς γὰρ ἔτυχεν recte se ha- 
buisset? | 

οὔ τι θαμίζεις scribendum esse ego quoque opinor. 

οὐδὲν ἂν σὲ ἔδει scribendum; nam in σὲ pronomine opposi- 
tionis notio inest. 

328 D [ἐπιθυμίαι τε καὶ ἡδοναί]. 

Recte se habet νεανίσκοις. 

παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς ---παρ᾽ ἐμὲ. 
328 Εἰ lunge τοῦτο ὃ δὴ. 

[τοῦ βίου] Adscripta fuerant haec verba ad τῆς ἡλικάς. 
329 A οἵόν γ᾽ ἐμοὶ. 

ἀναμνῃσκόμενοι <tav> περί te? 

τότε μὲν εὖ ζῶντες, νῦν δὲ οὐδὲ ζῶντες" : aut unum aut alterum 
participium fortasse eiciendum. 

329C Aut αὔτ᾽ ἀπέφυγον aut αὐτὰ ἀπέφυγον scribendum. 

ἀποδράς pro ἀποφυγών mihi arridet, nisi forte expellendum est 
participium. 

ἐπειδὰν yap necessario legendum. 

329 D ἔστι non potest retineri. 
ἐκίνουν καὶ εἶπον : Cf. ἠσπάζετο τε καὶ εἶπεν 328 C. 
329 Ε Καὶ λέγουσι μὲν τὶ. 
329 Ε  Intellexit Cicero: ὅς τῳ Σεριφίῳ. 
330 A ἐν αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ γήρᾳ) bene Richards. 
330 Β Ποῖον ἐπεκτησάμην (---Τί ἐπεκτησάμην) : facete tanquam indi- 
gnabundus haec respondet. 

Tlot<ov> ἐπεκτησάμην, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, <Os> μέσος κτέ. 

Fortasse τῆς νῦν « οὐσίας" οὔσης. 

Pro ξυγγενέσθαι apparet scribendum esse ξυγγίγνεσθαι. 


1 Fortasse οὐδὲ <y> ζῶντες. 


148 Greek Authors 


330 E Necessario scribendum est ἢ καί, ὥσπερ ἤδη ἐγγυτέρω dv τῶν 
ἐκεῖ, μᾶλλόν τι καθορῶν αὐτά. 

Fortasse scribendum etiam ὑποψίας γ᾽ οὖν. 

331 ΧΑ. καὶ ἀγαθή---γηροτρόφος, ὡς καὶ Πίνδαρος λέγει (nisi forte omit- 
tendum illud γηροτρόφος). 

Εὖ οὖν λέγει θαυμαστῶς ὡς OMiISSO σφόδρα, quippe quod idem 
valeat atque θαυμαστῶς ὡς. 

331 Β Per verba quae sunt τὸ γὰρ... χρήματα definitur ex mente 
Cephali notio iustitiae (δικαιοσύνης). 

μέγα μέρος εἰς τοῦτο---ομέγα μέρος τούτου (τούτου Cum συμβάλλεται 
iungendum), quod tamen ambiguum fuisset. 

331 (᾽ τοῦτο δ᾽ αὐτό, τὴν δικαιοσύνην, xré. Summa aviditate Socrates 
arripit occasionem ac materiem disputandi. 

331 C Haud accurate repetit Socrates Cephali definitionem. 

331 D Πάνυ μὲν ow verba hoc loco refragantis sunt. 

Οὐκ οὖν, ἔφη, ἐγὼ, 6 Πολέμαρχος. 

331 Ε τὸ τὰ ὀφειλόμενα ἑκάστῳ ἀποδιδόναι δίκαιόν ἐστι: logicam ra- 
tionem sententiae si spectamus intellegenda haec sunt quasi sint: 
τὸ δίκαιόν ἐστι τὸ... ἀποδιδόναι. 

μὴ σωφρόνως: parum accurate dictum pro μανέντι. 

332 A ὃς ἄν τῳ χρυσίον ἀποδιδῷ scribendum esse ex temporum ratione 
clare apparet. 

332 B oyéyvytat==yernoer Gar μέλλῃ. 

οὐχ οὕτω--οὐ τοῦτο. 
τύχῃ ὀφειλόμενον : potuisset, nisi fallor, etiam τυγχάνῃ ὀφειλό- 
μενον. 

332 C τὸ δίκαιον ὃ ein: pro τὸ ὃ. ὅ, τι εἴη, quod fortasse rescribendum. 

τοῦτ᾽ εἴη δίκαιον : parum accurate dictum, quod vitium e 

Graeci sermonis ingenio pendet. 

332 E zpos τὸν τῆς θαλάττης κίνδυνον «καὶ ἀσφάλειαν.» ἡ 

ἐν τίνι πράξει : Socrati quidem, ut ex interrogationibus eius cum 
praecedentibus tum insequentibus plane apparet, haec verba non 
aliud significant atque πῶς πράττοντας : Polemarchus autem ea 
intellegit quasi significarent τί πράττων (s. ποιῶν), neque id animad- 
vertere videtur Socrates, ut qui respondeat quasi Polemarcho 
rite responsum reddiderit, Evy enim dicit. Sed continuat 
interrogationem suam quasi Polemarchus non Ἔν τῷ προσπολεμεῖν 
καὶ ἐν τῷ ξυμμαχεῖν, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ dixisset, sed huius modi quid: 
Πολεμοῦσιν, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ. 


ὌΠ ΠῚ ὍΝ 





Plato 149 


332 E Kai μὴ πλέουσι δὲ (non δὴ). 

333 A Πρὸς τὰ ξυμβόλαια : Haud apte ad interrogationem respondet 
Polemarchus ; Socrates enim sic interrogaverat: τὴν δικαιοσύνην 
πρὸς Tivos χρείαν ἢ κτῆσιν ἐν εἰρήνῃ φαίης ἂν χρήσιμον εἶναι ; 

333 Βα πεττευτικός : ludi latrunculorum peritus. At qui fit ut adiec- 
tiva in—ixés desinentia apud Graecos—praesertim Atticos— 
peritiae plerumque notionem complectantur? Inde, nisi fallor, 
quod feminina eorum adiectivorum in substantiva transierant, 
quibus in substantivis auditur τέχνη, ars 5. peritia. Atque e 
substantivis illis in adiectiva ea vis quasi redundabat. 

333 E ’Ap οὖν καὶ νόσον ὅστις δεινὸς φυλάξασθαι, καὶ λαθεῖν οὗτος δεινότατος 

ἐμποιῆσαι; 
Valde captiose hic interrogat Socrates. Non est morbus quasi 
quidam ictus qui et repelli et infligi potest. Neque causa est 
cur notio clam morbi inferendi atque infligendi hoc loco indu- 
catur. ΔΛαθεῖν verbum sic inductum eo tantum ‘explicari potest 
quod Socrati iam videtur obversari cogitatio ea quam insequente 
enuntiato verbis exprimit de consiliis hostium surripiendis. 

334 A ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν στρατοπέδου ye ὁ αὐτὸς φύλαξ ἀγαθὸς ὅσπερ καὶ τὰ τῶν 
πολεμίων κλέψαι καὶ βουλεύματα καὶ τὰς ἄλλας πράξεις. Supplenda 
necessario sunt haec: «φύλαξ ἀγαθός ἐστιν». At istud quidem 
absurdum est supplementum. Rescribendum ergo: στρατόπεδόν 
ye 6 αὐτὸς φυλάξ «.αἱ"- ἀγαθὸς. 

334 C Τούτοις ἄρα xré.: 1. 6. τοῖς ἄρα οὕτως ἁμαρτάνουσιν 8. οὕτως ἔχουσιν. 

334 Ὦ Kara δὴ τὸν σὸν λόγον τοὺς μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντας δίκαιον κακῶς ποιεῖν. 
Hoc verborum contextu omnino non possunt recte se habere 
haec. Laborat enim δὴ particula. Ac cogitabam sane de δὲ 
particula pro δὴ substituenda. At ne sic quidem recte se habet 
argumentatio. Qua de causa conicio turbatum esse verborum 
vel potius enuntiatorum ordinem inde ab illo ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅμως quod est 
334 C. Pristinam consecutionem sic restitutam velim : 

᾿Αλλὰ μὴν of ye ἀγαθοὶ δίκαιοί τε Kal οἷοι μὴ ἀδικεῖν. 

᾿Αληθῆ. 

᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅμως δίκαιον τότε τούτοις τοὺς μὲν πονηροὺς ὠφελεῖν, 
τοὺς δ᾽ ἀγαθοὺς βλάπτειν. 

Φαίνεται. 

Κατὰ δὴ τὸν σὸν λόγον τοὺς μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντας δίκαιον κακῶς 
ποιειν. 


150 Greek Authors 


335 A Κελεύεις δὴ ἡμᾶς προσθεῖναι τῷ δικαίῳ καί, ὡς τὸ πρῶτον ἐλέγομεν 
--ο-λέγοντες δίκαιον εἶναι τὸν μὲν φίλον εὖ ποιεῖν, τὸν δὲ ἐχθρὸν κακῶς---, 
νῦν πρὸς τούτῳ ὧδε λέγειν, ὅτι κτέ. 

335 C ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἡ δικαιοσύνη οὐκ ἀνθρωπεία ἀρετή ; In eis quae insecuntur 
ita ratiocinatur Socrates quasi inverti possint enuntiati cuiuscun- 
que subiectum et praedicatum neque de significatione totius 
enuntiati quidquam detrahi aut deminui. At id aperte falsum. 

336 D ἐφοβούμην: at iam supra dictum est δείσαντες διεπτοήθημεν 


S36 fo (<2 2% bas > ot οὔτε σύ, ὦ φίλε ἀλλ᾽, οἶμαι, od δυνάμεθα. Com- 
pluria hic intercidisse arbitror. 

337C Eiv....7 δ᾽ ἐγώ: Locus corruptus quem ad sanandum 
equidem non valeo. 

337 Ε Attendenda est huius loci constructio : ἵνα Σωκράτης τὸ εἰωθὸς 
διαπράξηται, αὐτὸς μὲν μὴ ἀποκρίνηται, ἄλλου δ᾽ ἀποκρινομένου λαμβάνῃ 
λόγον καὶ ἐλέγχῃ (PIO αὐτὸς μὲν μὴ ἀποκρίνεσθαι κτὲ.). λαμβάνειν 
λόγον καὶ ἐλέγχειν h. |. vix aliud quidquam significare potest atque 
orationem accipere et examinare s. redarguere. 

Oppositio est hoc loco inter μὴ εἰδὼς μηδὲ φάσκων εἰδέναι et 
οἴεται (quod verbum resumit eadem significatione ἡγεῖται). 

ἀπειρημένον αὐτῷ εἴη: delendum illud εἴη, nam requiritur 
participium absolutum. 

338 Α Εἰπόντος δ᾽ ἐμοῦ ταῦτα. 

φιλονικεῖν πρὸς TO: Fortasse φιλονικεῖν deleto πρὸς τὸ. 

338 C-D In verbis quae sunt εἰ Πουλυδάμας ἡμῶν κρείττων ὃ παγκρατι- 
αστὴς καὶ αὐτῷ ξυμφέρει xré. COpulam desideramus in priore 
enuntiati membro. Id fortasse post παγκρατιαστὴς addendum 
ut sit παγκρατιαστής « ἐστι». 

339 A Subaudiendum est alio atque ante sensu verbum λέγεις in 
εἰ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἢ μή (verum autem si id sit necne); nam in ἔμαθον ὃ 
(=6, τι sive τί) λέγεις verbum quod est λέγεις non dicas significat 
sed dicere velts. 

ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν : = ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ye. 

339 C ἀναμάρτητοι: = οὐχ οἷοι ἁμαρτεῖν, ut apparet ex eis quae in- 
secuntur. 

In τίθεσθαι ἑαυτοῖς verbum medium adhibitum ex dativo pro- 
nominis reflexivi inde suspensi explicandum erat. Sed postea 
sine ulla quae quidem apparet necessitate iterum iterumque 
usurpatur verbum medium, cum ante illud τίθεσθαι ἑαυτοῖς suo et 


Plato 151 


proprio significatu adhibetur verbum activum in locutione quae 
est νόμους τιθένα. Nam de legumlatore non de populo leges 
iubente ac sanciente agitur. 

339 Εἰ ἃ ἐκεῖνοι προσέταξαν idem significare videtur quod ἃ ἄν ἐκεῖνοι 
προστάξωσιν. 

In eis quae secuntur sic distinguendum : dpa τότε (1.6. ὅταν ot 
μὲν xré.), ὦ σ. Θ., οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον (SC. ἐστι) συμβαίνειν αὐτὸ οὑτωσὶ δίκαιον 
εἶναι ποιεῖν ;---τοὐναντίον ἢ ὃ σὺ (fort. ὡς σὺ) λέγεις - τὸ γὰρ τοῦ 
κρείττονος κτὲ. 

ἀξύμφορον δή που idem valet quod ἀξύμφορον δή, οἶμαι. Supra 
τοῖς δὲ (SC. ἀρχομένοις) δίκαιον εἶναι φῇς idem valet atque τοῖς δὲ 
δίκαιον ἢ), ὡς φὴς σύ, κτέ. 

340 A Ἐὰν σύ γ᾽, ἔφη, αὐτῷ μαρτυρήσῃς, 6 Κλειτοφῶν ὑπολαβών. Cf. 
331 D Οὐκ οὖν, ἔφη, ἐγώ, ὃ Πολέμαρχος, τῶν γε σῶν κληρονόμος. 

καὶ τί, ἔφη, δεῖ (pro δεῦται). 

3840 Β In verbo ἔλεγεν ante ὃ ἡγοῖτο posito duae significationes 
dicendi et dicere volendi sic in unum coactae atque quasi conglutina- 
tae sunt vix ut divelli aut distingui possint. 

Attendendum est infra 340 C diserte dici non ἔλεγες sed ἐβούλου λέγειν, 
cum plerumque quasi furtim usurpetur λέγειν verbum λέγειν βούλεσθαι 
significans. 

340 C r<va> καὶ ἐξαμαρτάνειν. 

340 Ὦ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τῆν Guapriavscribendum. Error ex perperam lectis 
litteris uncialibus KATAYTHN ortus. Bis enim sibi visus est 
videre librarius aliquis litteras TA. 

ἢ λογιστικόν, ὃς ἂν ἐν λογισμῷ ἁμαρτάνῃ, κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
deleto τότε ὅταν ἁμαρτάνῃ. 

340 E Legendum puto νῦν δὴ ἀποκρίνασθαι. 

341 E σῶμά ἐστι πονηρὸν: quid significet illud πονηρὸν, videlicet in- 
perfectum, ex iis quae insecuntur elucet. Eadem autem notio 
subest illi πονηρά quod legitur 342 A. 

342 A ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμοὶ... ἐκποριούσης :Ξ---ὥσπερ σῶμα ἰατρικῆς προσδεῖται. 
In priore enuntiato seu enuntiati membro ἀρετῆς idem prope 
valet quod supplementi. Cf. 342 B προσδεῖται ἐπὶ τὴν αὑτῆς πο- 
νηρίαν τὸ ξυμφέρον σκοπεῖν - quae verba idem fere videntur valere 
atque προσδεῖται πρὸς τὴν αὑτῆς ἀρετὴν, atque ut verbo rem praeci- 
dam πονηρία hoc loco imperfectio valet, ἀρετὴ autem perfectio. 
Sed tamen attendendum erat illud ἀρετῆς cum scriberet Plato iam 
de alio eiusdem vocabuli significatu eum videri cogitasse. Nam 


152 Greek Authors 


ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ὦτα vocabula si spectamus, ἀρετῆς iam ibi ubi posi- 
tum est significare videtur muneris vel officti, neque vero iure 
est dubitandum quin duo quasi fila cogitationis hic nodo vix 
extricabili complicata sint, vel verius fortasse prius enuntiatj 
membrum colorem ac plus etiam quam colorem ex insequente 
traxerit. 

ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς: SC. τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ ὠσὶν. 

342 Βαὶ οὔτε αὑτῆς οὔτε ἄλλης προσδεῖται: = οὔτε αὑτῆς δεῖται οὔτε ἄλλης 
πρὸς αὑτῇ. 

ἕωσπερ ἂν... ἐστί... δες interpretationis vice funguntur 
illius ὀρθὴ οὖσα. An pro ἀκριβὴς ὅλη ἥπερ ἐστί rescribendum 
ἀκριβῶς κτὲ. 

342 D ἐπεχείρει δὲ περὶ αὐτὰ μάχεσθαι : SC. πρὶν ξυνωμολογῆσαι. Sic posito 
ἐπεχείρει POSt ξυνωμολόγησε Obscuratur aliquamdiu saltem imper- 
fecti ratio. 

343 Β ἀγαθὸν = ξυμφέρον. 

παχύνειν αὐτοὺς: αὐτοὺς ---τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ τοὺς βουκόλους. 
Cf. σκοπεῖν αὐτοὺς infra. 

Legendum esse censeo ἄλλως πως ἡγῇ διακεῖσθαι πρὸς τοὺς 
ἀρχομένους ἢ ὥσπερ ἄν τις πρὸς πρόβατα. Illud διακεῖσθαι coniecit 
Faesi. διατεθείη quod post πρόβατα in codicibus exstat expunxi 
ego tamquam supplementum perverse inculcatum, nam quo 
tandem modo expediendus fuit aoristus sic positus ut perfectum 
aequiperasset ? 

343 C_ καὶ οὕτω πόρρω εἶ: atque adeo erras. 

ἀλλότριος )( οἰκεῖος ( alienus )( proprius ). 

ξυμφέρον )( βλάβη. 

Verba τοῦ κρείττονός τε καὶ ἄρχοντος per chiasmum opponun- 
tur verbis τοῦ πειθουμένου τε καὶ ὑπηρετοῦντος. Post ἡ δὲ ἀδικία 
intercidisse suspicor καὶ τὸ ἄδικον. 

τοὐναντίον = contra. 

ot δ᾽ (ΞΞ οἱ ὡς ἀληθῶς εὐηθικοὶ καὶ δίκαιοι) ἀρχόμενοι ποιοῦσι τὸ 
ἐκείνου (= τοῦ ἄρχοντος) ξυμφέρον. 

αὐτῶ ad ἐκεῖνον referendum. Sententia loci est ee et 
felicem illum efficiunt dum ei subserviunt. Opposita sunt 
inter se ἐκεῖνον et ἑαυτοὺς pronomina. 

343 Ὁ σκοπεῖσθαι --- σκοπεῖν. 

εἰσφοραὶ )( λήψεις. 


“΄ C4 “ ΝΝ “ Ν 
οταν TE... OTAV Τέξξοταν μεν... οταν δὲ. 


Plato 153 


343 E καὶ γὰρ... ἄρχῃ: adversativa non causali hic est opus 
coniunctione. Pro καὶ yap, e/enim substituerim καὶ μὴν, atgut. 

344 A εὐδαίμων )( ἄθλιος. 

344 B πρὸς τοῖς τῶν πολιτῶν χρήμασι : Compendiarie dictum pro πρὸς 
τῷ τὰ τῶν πολιτῶν χρήματα ἀφέλεσθαι. 

αὐτοὺς : = Ipsos. 

344 C οὕτως: : = οὕτως ἀπεδείχθη ὅτι. 

344 E εἴτε χεῖρον εἴτε βέλτιον βιωσόμεθα ἀγνοοῦντες ὃ σὺ φὴς εἰδέναι : 
estne haec ipsius manus annon scripserit hoc ordine εἴτε βέλτιον 
εἴτε χεῖρον κτέ. ? 

345 Α ἃ βούλεται: attendendus verbi modus; non sunt haec pro ἃ 
ἂν βούληται sed protinus ἁτιναοῦν, guaevis. 

ov πείθει: SC. τοῦτο. 
An amittendum τῆς δικαιοσύνης ? 
ταῦτα καὶ ἕτερος (OMISSO οὖν) ? 
345 Β πείσω: --- δύναμαι πεῖσαι. 
345 C τὸ πρῶτον δριζόμενος : Cum ab initio definires. 
ἀκριβῶς φυλάξαι: aut post ἀκριβῶς aut ante illud δεῖν quod 
praecedit intercidisse suspicor ce pronomen, quod subiecti vice 
fungeretur si adesset, cum τὸν ὡς ἀληθῶς ποιμένα Obiectum sit 
φυλάξαι verbi. Illud φυλάξαι idem valet atque τηρῆσαι, id est, 
intra finis propriarum suarum partium actionis continere. 
Verba quae sunt καὶ μέλλοντα ἑστιάσεσθαι quasi additamentum 
sint explicantis alicuius vim quae illi δαιτυμόνα subest uncis 
saepta velim. 

345 D éor εἶναι βελτίστη : praeoptarim equidem βελτίστην. 

346 Ε ἑκὼν hoc loco (in ἐθέλειν ἑκόντα ἄρχειν) idem valet atque gratis, 
cum alias plerumque aut volens sit aut sciens. 

αὐτοῖσιν: = ipsis. 
347 A γιγνώσκω )( οὐ ξυνῆκα. 
ὡς. .. εἴρηκας : ὡς particula aut idem valet atque πῶς seu 
ὅπως aut emendanda. 
347 A-B An scribendum δύ ὃν ἐθέλουσιν ἄρχειν of ἐπιεικέστατοι ὅταν 


ἄρχωσιν ? 
347 Β ὅταν ἐθέλωσιν ἄρχειν. post ἄρχειν interrogationis signum 
ponendum. 


347 Ὁ Anscribendum simpliciter 6 τῷ ὄντι ἄρχων omisso quasi ad- 
scripto ἀληθινὸς adjectivo ? 


154 Greek Authors 


ὥστε πᾶς ἂν ὃ γιγνώσκων κτέ. : minime ferenda scriptura quod 
quidem ad ὥστε particulam attinet, pro qua equidem ὡς scrip- 
tum velim. 

347 E. cis αὖθις )( νῦν. Haec oppositio enuntiati formae minime 
apta. 

Scribendum cum Astio ov οὖν πότερον et καὶ ποτέρως ἀληθεστέρως. 

348 B An oo av... λέγωμεν ἢ 

Pro érorépws scribendum ποτέρως. 

348 Ὁ Ita dialogi personis orationem distribuendam esse censeo 
ut Socratis sint verba quae sunt ov δὲ... λέγειν. 

348 Ε' ὥσπερ ἄλλοι τινές : haud absurde mihi facere videntur qui 
haec Gorgiae dialogi ratione habita iniecta esse putant. 

349 Α τῷ λόγῳ ἐπεξελθεῖν σκοπούμενον : an secludendum τῷ λόγῳ Ὁ 

περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας COrruptum. 
τί δὲ σοί scribendum quoniam opponuntur invicem σοί et τὸν 
λόγον. 

349 Βὶ Pro οὐδὲ τῆς δικαίας equidem non graver reponere οὐδὲ ταύτης, 
nam quis ferre potest οὐδὲ τῆς δικαίας post eam interrogationis 
formulam quae praecessit ? 

349 Ὁ οὐδέτερα : hoc vocabulum plurali numero sic usurpatum ex 
ἀμφότερα pendet. 

τοιοῦτος dpa xré: sic intelligenda haec quasi sint τοιοῦτος dpa 
ἐστὶν ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν «οἷοί εἰσιν οὗτοι οἷσπερ eouxey >. 
μουσικὸν δὲ τινὰ ἕτερον δὲ ἄμουσον. 

349 Ε' ἅπερ φρόνιμον: = ἧπερ φρόνιμον. ἃ δὲ ἄφρονα = ἧ δὲ ἄφρονα. 

350 Β σοφὸς )( ἀμαθὴς. 

350C ᾧ γε ὅμοιος ἑκάτερος, τοιοῦτον καὶ ἑκάτερον εἶναι OMISSO εἴη 
emphaseos causa. 

ὡμολογοῦμεν γάρ : yap = δῆτα, vero. 
350 Εἰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ἐρωτῶ ὅπερ ἄρτι : an pro τοῦτο Substituendum ταὐτὸ ἡ 
351 Βα πόλιν φαίης ἂν ἄδικον εἶναι : ἄδικον generis neutri. 
πῶς γὰρ ov: Scribendum non πῶς γὰρ οὔκ. 
351 D_ Pro ἐγγιγνομένη corrigendum ἐγγενομένη. 
352 C_ ἧσαν pro ἤεσαν scribendum. 
ἡμιμόχθηροι : an legendum ἡμιτελεῖς ? nam praecedit ἀδικίᾳ. 

353 Α ἀρετὴ et κακία hic metaphorice usurpantur cum proprie ea 
vocabula adhiberi exspectaverimus, qua eorum significationis 
immutatione vitiosa fit ratiocinatio. 


Plato 155 


NOTE ON SYMPOSIUM, 179 C3 


Although the words that I would endeavour here to correct oc- 
cupy but a small space, I quote the passage in which they occur 
(symp. 179 B—D) in extenso, in order plainly to show them in their 
proper connection :— 

καὶ μὴν ὑπεραποθνήσκειν ye μόνοι ἐθέλουσιν οἱ ἐρῶντες, οὐκ x > [μόνον] ὅτι 
<of> ἄνδρες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ai γυναῖκες. τούτου δὲ καὶ ἡ Πελίου θυγάτηρ "Αλκηστις 
ἱκανὴν μαρτυρίαν παρέχεται ὑπὲρ τοῦδε τοῦ λόγου εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐθελήσασα 
μόνη ὑπὲρ τοῦ αὑτῆς ἀνδρὸς ἀποθανεῖν ὄντων αὐτῷ πατρός τε καὶ μητρός, os 
ἐκείνη τοσοῦτον ὑπερεβάλετο τῇ φιλίᾳ διὰ τὸν ἔρωτα ὥστ᾽ ἀποδεῖξαι αὐτοὺς 
ἀλλοτρίους ὄντας τῷ υἱεῖ καὶ ὀνόματι μόνον προσήκοντας. καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐργασαμένη 
τὸ ἔργον οὕτω καλὸν ἔδοξεν ἐργάσασθαι οὐ μόνον ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ καὶ θεοῖς ὥστε 
πολλῶν πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ ἐργασαμένων εὐαριθμήτοις δή τισιν ἔδοσαν τοῦτο γέρας 
οἱ θεοί, ἐξ ἽΔιδου ἀνιένα ἢ πάλιν τὴν ψυχήν, ἀλλ᾽ α-ὐ»τὴν ἐκείνη νὴ 
ἀνεῖσαν ἀγασθέντες τῷ ἔργῳ - οὕτω καὶ θεοὶ τὴν περὶ τὸν ἔρωτα σπουδήν τε καὶ 
ἀρετὴν μάλιστα τιμῶσιν. “Opdéa δὲ τὸν Οἰάγρου ἀτελῆ ἀπέπεμψαν ἐξ “Adov 
φάσμα δείξαντες τῆς γυναικὸς ἐφ᾽ ἣν ἧκεν, αὐτὴ ν δὲ οὐ δόντες, ὅτι μαλθακίζε- 
σθαι ἐδόκει ἅτε ὧν κιθαρῳδὸς καὶ οὐ τολμᾶν ἕνεκα τοῦ ἔρωτος ἀποθνήσκειν 
ὥσπερ ἤλλκηστις, ἀλλὰ διαμηχανᾶσθαι ζῶν εἰσιέναι εἰς “Αιδου. 

Hommel’s correction of ἀνεῖναι to ἀνιέναι, which had forced itself 
upon me before I knew that he had made it, seems inevitable; albeit 
it has met with little or no favour with subsequent editors. The 
traditional reading is easily explained as due to the following ἀνεῖσαν. 

As to the change that I would propose the following poiits must 
be noticed. First, there is a sharp antithesis implied between 
εὐαριθμήτοις -- ψυχήν and αὐτῆς (following the vulgate)—ré ἔργῳ: 
secondly, this antithesis is not expressed by the vulgate : thirdly, 
the position of τὴν ψυχήν indicates that in the antithetical clause we 
should have a term contrasted with it ; but τὴν ἐκείνης (sc. ψυχὴν) will 
not suffice. We gain help from the story of Orpheus where φάσμα 
and αὐτή, ‘the real woman herself,’ are contrasted. Reading αὐτὴν 
ἐκείνην we have the woman herself as σῶμα καὶ ψυχή contrasted with 
the mere ψυχὴ. 


NOTE ON THE APOLOGY: 
Plato, Apol. 17 οὗτοι μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ ἐγὼ λέγω, ἢ τὶ ἢ οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς. 


1[ From the Classical Review, Vol. XI (1897), Ρ- 159.] 

2 ἀνεῖναι MSS., em. Alexander Hommel in ed. Symp. Lipsiae 1834. 
3 ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκείνης MSS, et edd. 

4[From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 20. ] 


156 Greek Authors 


εἰρήκασιν - ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἀκούσεσθε πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν---οὐ μέντοι μὰ Δί᾽, ὦ 
ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, κεκαλλιεπημένους γε λόγους, ὥσπερ οἱ τούτων, ῥήμασί τε καὶ 
ὀνόμασιν, οὐδὲ κεκοσμημένους ᾿ ἀλλ᾽ ἀκούσεσθε εἰκῇ λεγόμενα τοῖς ἐπιτυχοῦσιν 
ὀνόμασι πιστεύω γὰρ δίκαια εἶναι ἃ λέγω---καὶ μηδεὶς ὑμῶν προσδοκησάτω 
ἄλλως - οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν δήπου πρέποι, ὦ ἄνδρες, τῇδε τῇ ἡλικίᾳ ὥσπερ μειρακίῳ 
πλάττοντι λόγους εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσιέναι. I need not speak particularly of 
the chiastic double contrast at the beginning of this passage 
ι:: V eye ) nor of some other minor points. I have tried to make 
ὑμεῖς Λ ἐμοῦ ᾿ 
these clear by the way in which I have written and pointed the 
words.’ It is about a common misunderstanding and misinterpreta- 
tion of the words from κεκαλλιεπημένους tO ἐπιτυχοῦσιν ὀνόμασι that I 
wish to speak here. Stallbaum’s explanation of these words, which 
has doubtless led many astray, runs thus :—Praeterea commemorat 
Socrates λόγους κεκοσμημένους, h.e. orationes ornatas, videlicet tropis, 
figuris, numero; in his enim rebus maxime cernitur κόσμος 5. ornatus 
orationis. This way of interpreting, or rather misinterpreting, is 
due to failure to heed the chiastic contrast in the Greek and to mis- 
understanding of the meaning of κεκοσμημένους. κεκοσμημένους (λόγους) 
is contrasted with εἰκῇ λεγόμενα and κεκαλλιεπημένους λόγους ῥήμασί τε 
καὶ ὀνόμασιν With λεγόμενα τοῖς ἐπιτυχοῦσιν ὀνόμασι. κεκοσμημένους MEANS 
‘marshalled,’ ‘ordered,’ ‘arranged,’ as opposed to εἰκῇ λεγόμενα. We 
find something similar in Eur. Zed. 576, where εὖ τούσδ᾽ ἐκόσμησας 
λόγους may be, I think, most simply interpreted ‘well have you 
marshalled these words.’ 


CRITICAL NOTES ON THE. REZPUSLICS 


In Plato Republic, 423 B, I propose to read for ὅσην δεῖ τὸ μέγεθος τὴν 
πόλιν ποιεῖσθαι, which seems to be dubious Greek, οἵαν δεῖ τὸ μέγεθος xré. 
The Greek equivalent of Zo¢ is οὕτω πολλοί (πολλά) OF τοσοῦτοι (τοσαῦτα) 
τὸ πλῆθος (unless τοσοῦτοι alone is clearly shewn by the context to 
be = /of). But the resolution of τοσοῦτος is either οὕτω μέγας or 
τοιοῦτος τὸ μέγεθος (cf. Lysias 12. 1), Or τηλικοῦτος τὸ μέγεθος (cf. Lysias 
26. 23). Similarly the resolution of πόσοι or ὅσοι indicating multi- 
tude is πόσοι (ὅσοι) τὸ πλῆθος (cf. Dem. 29. 51); that of ὅσος indicating 
magnitude would be οἷος τὸ péye60s.—Incidentally I would amend Hdt. 
4. 143 80 as to read τοσοῦτο <1rd> πλῆθος γενέσθαι doo <oi> ἐν τῇ 


1[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXIV 
(1903), p- xxiii.] 


Plato 157 


pow κόκκοι, and Isocr. 4. 33 soas to read Swpe<u> ay τοιαύτην τὸ μέγεθος 
εὑρεῖν. 

In Plato’s Republic, 470 C, we read’: Ἕλληνας μὲν ἄρα βαρβάροις καὶ 
βαρβάρους Ἕλληδι πολεμεῖν μαχομένους Te φήσομεν καὶ πολεμίους φύσει εἶναι 
καὶ πόλεμον τὴν ἔχθραν ταύτην κλητέον - Ἕλληνας δὲ "EAAnow, ὅταν τι τοιοῦτο 
δρῶσιν, φύσει μὲν φίλους εἶναι, νοσεῖν δ᾽ ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ τὴν Ἑλλάδα καὶ στασιά- 
few καὶ στάσιν τὴν τοιαύτην ἔχθραν κλητέον. Here I believe we should 
read φύσει μὲν φιλίους εἶναι, and in general the formula holds good that 
ἐχθρός : φίλος : : πολέμιος : φίλιος. As the commoner word, φέλος has 
been substituted for φίλιος in the MSS. in not a few places. I note 
here the following: Lysias 12, 38 (read ἢ ὡς πόλεις πολεμίας οὔσας 
φιλίας ἐποίησαν), Xen. Anab. 1, 3, 12 (read πολλοῦ μὲν ἄξιος φίλος ᾧ ἄν 
φίλιος 7), 16. 1,6, ὃ (read τῷ ἐμῷ ἀδελφῷ πολέμιος, ἐμοὲ δὲ φίλιος καὶ 


πιστός). 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 22.] 


MISCELLANEOUS GREEK AUTHORS. 


ON THE INTRODUCTION TO APPIAN’S ROMAN 
HIS PORY ΣΧ" 


In the introduction to Appian’s Roman History we read (cap. 
xi. init.) Ta δὲ Ῥωμαίων μεγέθει τε καὶ εὐτυχίᾳ διήνεγκε δι᾿ εὐβουλίαν καὶ 
χρόνον xré. Here Schweighduser annotates as follows: Legendum 
puto μεγέθει τε καὶ χρόνῳ ; δι᾿ εὐβουλίαν καὶ εὐτυχάν. This Mendelssohn 
thinks plausible. But Appian wrote as the words stand. The chiastic 
contrast μέγεθος : εὐτυχία : : εὐβουλία : χρόνος is the key to the whole pass- 
age. At the end of this passage Appian says: ἕως ἑπτακοσίοις ἔτεσι 
(χρόνος) κακοπαθοῦντές τε καὶ κινδυνεύοντες ἀγχωμάλως τὴν ἀρχὴν és τόδε 
(uéye9os) προήγαγον καὶ τῆς εὐτυχίας ὥναντο διὰ τὴν εὐβουλίαν. Here 
we have : χρόνος : μέγεθος : : εὐτυχία : ebBovdia. The thought is that “me 
(and patience) has brought greatness ; good counsel has brought good 
fortune. The difficulty is due to the fact that for the sake of the 
contrast Appian has used xpovos in such a way that it is formally 
opposed to μέγεθος, whereas in fact the connotation ‘patience’ out- 
weighs the denotation ‘duration.’ 


NOTES ON BACCHYLIDES.? 


ix. 22 sqq. Mr Kenyon punctuates x«Aewo[t Bplorav, | ot τριέτει κτέ. 
Either the comma should be omitted (cf. the punctuation of ν͵ 
50) or it should be placed between κλεινοὶ and βροτῶν. The meaning 
is not ‘glorious among mortals are they that,’ etc., but ‘glorious are 
those among mortals that,’ etc. It may be added here that the 
comma after Χάει in v. 27 should be removed. It is immaterial 
whether or not a comma be placed after ἔθειραν in v. 29. 

xi. 8sq. [Ba6v]rAoxduov seems certainly right. Professor Blass’s 
Στυγὸς in v. 9 gets rid of the difficulty about the appropriateness of 
the epithet. Professor Jebb’s βαθυπλόκαμ᾽ ὦ spoils the rhyme with 
ὀρθοδίκου, which may well be intentional (cf. vv. 22 sq., where ἀέλιος 
is answered by ἄματι zpés). Besides Bacchylides’s manner of ar- 
ranging words favours an adjective before κούρα, agreeing with the 


' [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 22.] 
* [From the Classical Review, Vol. XII (1898), pp. 394-395.] 


Bacchylides 159 


substantive after it. Cf. xi. 28 sq. παγξένῳ χαίταν ἐλαίᾳ γλαύκᾳ, V. 19 
Sq. εὐρυάνακτος ἄγγελος Ζηνὸς ἐρισφαράγου, V. 98 Sq. καλυκοστεφάνου σεμνᾶς 
χόλον ᾿Αρτέμιδος λευκωλένου. In the last example two adjectives come 
first. 

xi. 43-58. Perhaps Euripides did not have these verses in mind 
in writing Bacch. 23-38, but there are points of quite marked resem- 
blance between the two passages. τὰς ἐξ ἐρατῶν ἐφόβησε | παγκρατὴς 
Ἥρα μελάθρων | Προίτου, παραπλῆγι φρένας | καρτερᾷ ζεύξασ᾽ ἀνάγκᾳ in 
Bacchylides might very well have served as model for τοιγάρ νιν 
αὐτὰς ἐκ δόμων ᾧστρησ᾽ ἐγὼ | μανίαις - ὄρος δ᾽ οἰκοῦσι παράκοποι φρενῶν in 
Euripides. Cf. the last verse and #acch. 38 with Bacchyl. xi. 55. 
So too the daughters of Proetus were punished for something they 
said (φάσκον Bacchyl. xi. 50), the women of Thebes for something 
they denied (οὐκ ἔφασκον Eur. Bacch. 27). Add to all this the fond- 
ness of Euripides for describing madness and the consequent likeli- 
hood that the passage in Bacchylides would have stuck in his 
memory, and the resemblance between his verses and those of the 
older poet may well be thought more than superficial. 

xvi. 35. I fail to see that there is any objection to the expression 
δαιμόνιον τέρας here. It would mean a ‘portentous thing.’ It is used 
for a ‘portentous event’ (or ‘sight’) by Sophocles in Ant. 375 (és 
δαιμόνιον τέρας dudwod). This poem seems to have been familiar to 
Sophocles. 

xvii. 20. Sucha form as εἶρεν was not strange to the grammar- 
ians, to judge from the scholia on Hom. A 513 (καὶ εἴρετο δεύτερον 
atris). Here the Venetian scholia give Δημήτριος ὃ ᾿Ιξίων προπερισπᾷ 
παραλαμβάνων τὸ τό ἄρθρον and the Townleyan ὃ Ἰξίων “καὶ εἶρε τὸ δεύτερον,᾽ 
κακῶς. I forbear to discuss the merits of εἶρε τὸ as opposed to εἴρετο 
beyond remarking that Thetis does not properly ‘ask’ (in the sense 
of ‘enquire’) anything. But would the reading εἶρε τὸ have been 
suggested or regarded at all had the form «pe been strange in itself ? 

xvii. 82 sqq. ἀλλ᾽ εὐ- | πάκτων ἐπ᾽ ἰκρίων | σταθεὶς ὄρουσε. Here I 
venture to think we should substitute ἀπ᾽ for ἐπ. In Euripides, 
Phoen. 1223 sq., we find "EreoxXéns δ᾽ ὑπῆρξ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ὀρθίου σταθεὶς | πύργου 
κελεύσας σῖγα κηρῦξαι στρατῷ, ‘noch der Vorstellung,’ as Dr Wecklein 
says, ‘dass seine Worte von dorther gehért wurden.’ Cf. Phoen. 
1009 στὰς ἐξ ἐπάλξεων ἄκρων and the other passages cited in Professor 
Jebb’s valuable note on Soph. Ant. 411. Perhaps in Phoen. 1091 


160 Greek Authors 


we should correct πύργων ἐπ᾽ ἄκρων στὰς to 7. ἀπ᾽ ἄκρων σ. In Soph. 
Ant. 132 Mr Blaydes not unjustly queries whether we should not read 
ἀπ᾽ ἄκρων for ἐπ᾽ ἄκρων, and ἀπ᾽ is found in V* according to Professor 
Campbell. 


DEMOSTHENES’S NICKNAME é@pyas.' 


In Plutarch’s Demosthenes we read (4. 5): Ὁ δὲ ad pyas—xai τοῦτο 
yap φασι τῷ Δημοσθένει γενέσθαι παρωνύμιον ---ἢ πρὸς τὸν τρόπον ὡς θηριώδη 
καὶ πικρὸν ἐτέθη" τὸν γὰρ ὄφιν ἔνιοι τῶν ποιητῶν ἀρ γᾶν ὀνομάζουσιν : ἢ 
πρὸς τὸν λόγον ὡς ἀνιῶντα τοὺς ἀκροωμένους * καὶ γὰρ ᾿Αργᾶς τοὔνομα ποιητὴς 
ἦν νόμων πονηρῶν καὶ ἀργαλέων. Both these explanations of the nick- 
name I believe to be wrong, and I also believe that the right expla- 
nation is to be found in Aeschylus’s Agamemnon, where we now read 
in v. 114 sq.—thanks to the acumen of Blomfield and Hartung— 
these words : οἰωνῶν βασιλεὺς βασιλεῦσι νεῶν, ὃ κελαινὸς ὃ δ᾽ ἐξόπιν ἀρ χᾷς, 
which description of the two eagles is equivalent to: 6 μὲν μελάμπυγος 
ὃ δὲ πύγαργος. Now what more natural than that some witty—or 
would-be witty—Greek should from this passage take a synonyme 
of πύγαργος (which, as opposed to μελάμπυγος, was used to describe a 
weakling) to throw at the head of the weak and frail Demosthenes ? 

If my explanation of the origin of the nickname is right, we 
should, of course, write it not ἀργᾶς but dpyds. 


ON HELIODORUS, AZTAIOPICA.’ 
Aethiop. 10. 14, 25 sqq. Bekk. τῆς ye μὴν κατὰ τὴν χροιὰν ἀπορίας 


φράζει μέν σοι καὶ ἡ ταινία THY λύσιν, ὁμολογούσης ἐν αὐτῇ ταυτησὶ Περσίνης 
ἐσπακέναι τινὰ εἴδωλα καὶ φαντασίας ὁμοιοτήτων ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν 
᾿Ανδρομέδαν πρὸς σὲ ὁμιλίας ὁρωμένης. εἰ δ᾽ οὖν καὶ ἄλλως 
πιστώσασθαι βούλει, πρόκειται τὸ ἀρχέτυπον: ἐπισκόπει τὴν ᾿Ανδρομέδαν, 
ἀπαράλλακτον ἐν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ κόρῃ δεικνυμένην. 

Allis right except the spaced words. These are senseless ; but the 
following words of Persina’s letter (4. 8. 35 sqq. [pp. 106 sqq.]) 
help us out: ἐπειδὴ δέ σε λευκὴν ἀπέτεκον, ἀπρόσφυλον Αἰθιόπων χροιὰν 
ἀπαυγάζουσαν, ἐγὼ μὲν τὴν αἰτίαν ἐγνώριζον, ὅτι μοι παρὰ τὴν ὅμιλίαν 
τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα προσβλέψαι τὴν ᾿Ανδρομέδαν ἡ γραφὴ 
παρασχοῦσα, κτὲ. We may, therefore, read ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν πρὸς 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIX (1905), pp. 250-251. ] 
? [From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p. 3-] 


Herodotus ΤΟΙ 


σὲ ὁμιλίαν ὁρωμένης. The gloss ᾿Ανδρομέδας wrongly inserted is the 
Sons et origo malorum. 


AD HERODOTUM.' 


Parvum illud prooemium Herodoti Historiae praefixum sic edi 
solet : 

Ἡροδότου ᾿Αλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἧδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ 
ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν 
Ἕλλησι, τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίην 
ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι. Quibus in verbis λεγόμενα pro γενόμενα verissime 
coniecit anno 1716 Stephanus Bergler’?. Neque id tamen satis: 
diligentem enim interrogem lectorem qua ratione ad épya referri 
possint illa τά τε ἄλλα... .. ἀλλήλοισι. Quid autem quod statim in- 
secuntur fabulae de Graecorum Asianorumque inimicitiarum fonte 
et origine varie utrimque narratae? Ne multa, totum quo de agitur 
locum sic refictum velim: Ἡροδότου ᾿Αλικαρνησσέος ἰστορίης ἀπόδεξις 
ἤδε, «γενομένη» ὡς μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν [λλησι τὰ δὲ 
Βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται μήτε τὰ λεγόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ 
χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα «καὶ δὴ» καὶ δ ἢν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν 
ἀλλήλοισι. 


ON Παῖμα, πῆμα, HERODOTUS I. 67°. 


Roberts (Gk. Epig. p. 48) says of the inscription Tépruvoes τὸ παῖμα 
on an ancient coin of Gortyn in Crete that ‘no satisfactory explana- 
tion has been offered of the word zotya,’ though ‘ it has been sug- 
gested [see the references ad loc. cit.] that παῖμα: παίω: : κόμμα (coin): 
xomtw.’ May we not see a support of this view in the oracle in Hat. 
1, 67,in which καὶ τύπος ἀντίτυπος, καὶ πῆμ᾽ ἐπὶ πήματι κεῦται is under- 
stood as referring in τύπος ἀντίτυπος to hammer and anvil and in πῆμ᾽ 
ἐπὶ πήματι κεῖται to a suffering thing laid ready to produce suffering 
(τὸν δὲ ἐξελαυνόμενον σίδηρον τὸ πῆμα ἐπὶ πήματι κείμενον, κατὰ τοιόνδε τι 
εἰκάζων, ὡς ἐπὶ κακῷ ἀνθρώπου σίδηρος ἀνεύρηται) } That is, may we not 
prefer to this, in part, forced interpretation of the oracle, taken 
down we must remember by ear, the following explanation? The 
general interpretation is correct, but the words πῆμ᾽ ἐπὶ πήματι κεῖται 


1[From Mnemosyne, Vol. XX XIII (1905), Ρ. 444.] 
25 Vid. Dorv. ad Charit. p. 9. 
3 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 20.] 


162 Greek Authors 


are to be understood as παῖμ᾽ ἐπὶ παίματι κεῖται, in which the preposi- 
tion ἐπὶ has its normal sense, and this second half of the verse be- 
comes but another expression for the former, which in turn should 
be slightly corrected to what I believe to have been its original 
form. 

Thus we read :— 

Kat τύπος ἀντιτύπῳ, Kal waip ἐπὶ παίματι κεῖται. 

Ἐπὶ is, of course, to be understood with ἀντιτύπῳ and παῖμα is used 
first actively (instrument of striking), then passively (result of 
striking, object struck). Such ambiguity in the pronunciation of 
oracles as is assumed above may be illustrated by the Jocus classicus 
in Thucydides (4, 54, 2-3) concerning the oracle 
λοιμὸς 


ἥξει Δωριακὸς πόλεμος καὶ ΐ Kuss 


7 » > ~ 
ἂμ avTw. 


ENCORE HERODOTE I. 86: 


La lettre de M. Keelhoff a M. Tournier sur Hérodote I, 86 (Revue 
de Philologie, xxi (1897), p. 179 sq.) m’a surpris. Si je ne me 
trompe, le savant auteur est dupe d’une sorte d’erreur d’optique. 
Il met sur la méme ligne les deux locutions εἴργει σε τοῦτο ποιεῖν et 
εἴργει σε μὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖν. 1] est vrai que ces deux phrases s’emploient 
d’une maniére générale dans le méme sens; mais il n’est pas exact 
qu’on puisse les réduire toujours aux mémes éléments. Car la 
phrase εἴργει σε τοῦτο ποιεῖν est susceptible d’une double analyse. On 
peut la résoudre ou en εἴργει et σε τοῦτο ποιεῖν OU en εἴργει σε Εἴ τοῦτο 
ποιεῖν. Dans le premier cas les mots σε τοῦτο ποιεῖν forment une phrase 
objective équivalente a un accusatif de l’objet extérieur (ou acci- 
dentel). Dans le second cas l’infinitif ποιεῖν se construit comme 
génitif (ou plutot comme ablatif). Dans la phrase εἴργει σε μὴ τοῦτο 
ποιεὶν au contraire les deux éléments sont εἴργει σε et μὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖν, 
dont le deuxiéme n’est autre chose qu’un accusatif de l’objet inté- 
rieur ou, pour traduire l’expression employée par M. Koch dans sa 
grammaire, du contenu (des Inhalts). C’est en cherchant a donner 
plus distinctement l’allure d’un substantif a l’infinitif de la phrase 
εἴργει σε τοῦτο ποιεῖν dans le second cas qu’on est arrivé a la formule 
εἴργει σε τοῦ τοῦτο ποιεῖν ; et c'est en employant le méme procédé avec 
Vobjet intérieur dans la phrase εἴργει σε μὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖν qu’on a formé 


1 [From Revue de Philelogie, Vol. XXI{ (1898), pp. 182-183. ] 


Herodotus. Homer 163 


la locution εἴργει σε τὸ μὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖν. C'est 1a la distinction que M. 
Koch? a faite et dont M. Keelhoff ne semble pas avoir saisi la valeur, 
“a moins qu’on en étende l’application’”. Mais il me semble que 
application est déja aussi étendue que possible. Lorsqu’on dit que 
la négation qui fait partie de la phrase ott l’infinitif est traité en 
objet intérieur peut étre insérée dans la phrase οὐ l’infinitif se con- 
struit comme génitif, on admet que les Grecs ont mélé illogiquement 
deux constructions bien disparates. Qu’ils aient fait un tel abus de 
la négation, au moins a l’époque classique, cela ne me semble pas 
trés probable a priori; et les exemples ne sont pas du tout con- 
vaincants. Les manuscrits ont pu trés facilement étre défigurés 
sous la plume des copistes. 

Quant a l’emploi du génitif avec ῥύεσθαι chez Hérodote, M. Keel- 
hoff n’a pas tout a fait raison. Car le codex R offre le génitif con- 
struit avec ce verbe au livre ix, 76: ῥῦσαί με. .. δουλοσύνης, lecon 
adoptée par M. Stein dans son édition de 1884. Dans son Le.ricon 
Herodoteum 5. v. ῥύεσθαι, Schweighauser avait depuis longtemps 
écrit, ἃ propos de ce dernier passage, “ubi perperam olim λῦσαι [au 
lieu de ῥύσαι] vulgo legebatur”’. 


ON HERODOTUS II. 30. 


ἔπειτα δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ οἶνον [κατὰ τοῦ ἱρηίου] ἐπισπείσαντες Kal ἐπικαλέσαντες 
τὸν θεὸν σφάζουσι. I would strike out the words bracketed as a mere 
gloss on ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 

The older scholars found difficulty with the awkward xara (i. e. 
in the Greek of Herodotus). Schweighauser, Lex. Herod. s. u. 
κατὰ, Says on this passage: | 

‘Interpretatus sum adversus victimam; H. Stephanus, supra ho- 
stiam; Gronovius, circa hostiam, 


OF TWO PASSAGES IN HOMER.’ 


In commenting on Eurip. Alc. 64-69 I have called attention to the 


1 La traduction francaise citée par M. Keelhoff me semble obscurcir en quelque 
sorte le vrai sens de l’original. Les mots ‘‘ mais—-action’’ ne sont pas dans I’original 
(ἃ moins qu’ils ne se trouvent dans une édition postérieure 4 la neuvi¢éme). Les mots 
‘Vidée de l’action principale’ forment une traduction libre des mots des Inhalt, “16 
contenu”,—terme qui s’explique par ce que M. Koch dit § 83 en décrivant ‘‘l’accusatif 
du contenu” (des /nxhalts). 

1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), p. 73.] 

3 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XI (1897), pp. 242-243.] 


164 Greek Authors 


rhetorical inversion of cause and effect in these verses and also to 
the close parallel to be found in Aesch. Prom. 918-923,—a parallel 
that extends even to the expansion of the τοῖος sentence by a ὃς δὴ 
sentence. Of course, however, the postponement of the τοῖος clause 
is the essential common factor. In a note on Alc. 332 sq. the same 
principle of arrangement is appealed to in defence of the traditional 
text (barring ἄλλως in v. 333, which should perhaps be changed, with 
Wakefield, to ἄλλων). Here οὕτως with an adjective is equal to a 
specific τοῖος (rota). This defence was, 1 still think (with all due 
respect to Mr Hadley), sound. But it is not my object at present 
to discuss the instances of this form of sentence in the Alcestis, or 
in the Tragedians at large (cf., however, for Sophocles Ai. 560-563), 
but to deal with earlier examples of it. 
A parallel to the first two passages cited above (Alc. 64-69, Prom. 

918-923) is to be found in Hom. A 387-390 :— 

ἔνθ᾽ οὐδὲ ξεῖνός περ ἐὼν ἱππηλάτα Τυδεὺς 

τάρβει, μοῦνος ἐὼν πολέσιν μετὰ Καδμείοισιν, 

ἀλλ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ ἀεθλεύειν προκαλίζετο, πάντα δ᾽ ἐνίκα 

ῥηϊδίως - τοίη οἱ ἐπίρροθος ἧεν ᾿Αθήνη - 
The parallel would be complete in extenso, if the last verse were 
followed by a relative clause beginning with 7 δὴ (6. g. 7 δή of μέγα 
θάρσος ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἐνῆκεν). With A 389-90 we may compare E 807-8, 
even if v. 808 be an interpolation. E 826-8 has the former sentence 
in the imperative, but the τοῖος clause is like (indeed, is nearly 
identical with) that in E 808 and that in A 390. (With E 826-8 
we may compare © 342 sq. with O 254.) In all these passages we 
have a form of the qualitative τοῖος, and we may find another case, 
or rather, perhaps, an extension, of this at ὃ 227 (cf. Eur. Med. 718 
and 789), if we lighten the pointing at the close of v. 226. Similar 
to this last is the use of the quantitative τόσος in « 243. Other (and 
better) instances of forms of τόσος in the type of sentence we are 
considering are: ἔξ 326, τ 295, E 836, I 546. The demonstrative 
adverb οὕτω, without a following adjective, appears similarly used at 
. 262. The absence of the adjective differentiates (though not 
essentially) this example from Alc. 332 sq. 

We come now to the passage that prompted the writing of this 

note—A 418. According to the traditional text Thetis says to 
Achilles (v. 414 544.) :— 


Homer 165 


ὦ μοι, τέκνον ἐμόν, τί νύ σ᾽ ἔτρεφον αἰνὰ τεκοῦσα ; 

αἴθ᾽ ὄφελες παρὰ νηυσὶν ἀδάκρυτος καὶ ἀπήμων 415 

ἧσθαι, ἐπεί νυ τοι αἶσα μίνυνθά περ, ob τι μάλα δήν, 

νῦν δ᾽ ἅμα τ᾽ ὠκύμορος καὶ ὀιζυρὸς περὶ πάντων 

ἔπλεο " τῶ (OF τῷ) σε κακῇ αἴσῃ τέκον ἐν μεγάροισιν. 
But ‘therefore ill-starred did I bring thee forth in the hall’ is not 
what we expect here, and I have for some time believed a slight 
change in the text (really only an interpretation of the MS. tradi- 
tion) to be necessary. Write τῶς σε κακῇ αἴσῃ τέκον ἐν μεγάροισιν, and 
we have an instance of the form of expression we have been dis- 
cussing: ‘So ill-starred did I bear thee in the hall’ (= οὕτω σε xré.). 

This seems to be the only case in Homer where τῶς has given 

place to τῶ (τῷ) : but, if we examine the few passages in which rds 
appears (we may well think, with van Leeuwen, that it was once 
more frequent), we shall find one that should, it seems, by a trifling 
transposition be reduced to the type of sentence we are dealing with. 
In τ 232 sqq. we read :-— 

τὸν δὲ χιτῶν᾽ ἐνόησα περὶ χροὶ σιγαλόεντα, 

οἷόν τε κρομύοιο λοπὸν κάτα ἰσχαλέοιο, 

τῶς μὲν ἔην μαλακός, λαμπρὸς δ᾽ ἦν ἠέλιος ὥς" 

ἦ μὲν πολλαί γ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐθηήσαντο γυναῖκες. 235 
Here the οἷον clause is explanatory οἵ σιγαλόεντα. The τῶς sentence 
immediately following, with its μαλακός, which is not in point after 
ἰσχαλέοιο, and its λαμπρὸς ἠέλιος ὥς, Which makes a homely comparison 
ridiculous by contrast, is, furthermore, awkwardly and unusually 
connected with v. 235. We have only to reverse the order of vv. 234 
and 235 (the present order is easily to be explained by a careless 
reader's ready connection of τῶς with οἷον and by the similar position 
of μὲν in the two verses) to have the arrangement that is normal in 
such sentences, as well as a greatly improved sense,—indeed, I would 
fain believe, the original form of the passage. Thus we shall read :— 

τὸν δὲ χιτῶν᾽ KTE. ἶ 

ἢ μὲν πολλαί γ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐθηήσαντο γυναῖκες - 235 

τῶς μὲν ἔην μαλακός, λαμπρὸς δ᾽ ἦν ἠέλιος ὥς. 234 

There is a passage in Aeschylus (Prom. 907 544.) that belongs 

with those discussed above, and should be read thus :— 

ἢ μὴν ἔτι Ζεὺς, καίπερ αὐθάδη φρονῶν, 

ἔσται ταπεινός - τοῖον ἐξαρτύεται κτὲ. 


166 Greck Authors 


Faith in the text of the Mediceus has led scholars, since Hermann, 
to reject the vulgate for αὐθάδης φρενῶν in v. 907 (though that does 
not so much concern us now) and to cling to οἷον where τοῖον is 
clearly demanded, as Robortello long ago saw. 


NOTES ON HOMER.’ 


In Hom. Odyssey a 108 αὐτοί seems to be generally misunderstood. 
The passage should, I am quite sure, be understood thus (106-109) : 
εὗρε δ᾽ dpa μνηστῆρας ἀγήνορας - ot μὲν ἔπειτα 

πεσσοῖσι προπάροιθε θυράων θυμὸν ἔτερπον, 

ἥμενοι ἐν ῥινοῖσι βοῶν οὺς ἔκτανον, αὐτοί " 

κήρυκες δ᾽ αὐτοῖσι καὶ ὀτρηροὶ θεράποντες κτὲ. 
‘They themselves were playing at πεσσοί, seated on hides of oxen that 
they had killed, while their heralds,” &c. 


In Hom. Iliad Z, after Antia’s accusation of Bellerophon to 

Proetus, we read (166): 

ὡς φάτο, τὸν δὲ ἄνακτα χόλος λάβεν, οἷον ἄκουσεν * 

κτεῖναι μέν ῥ᾽ ἀλέεινε --- σεβάσσατο γὰρ τό γε θυμῴ--- 

πέμπε δέ μιν Λυκίηνδε, πόρεν δ᾽ 6 γε σήματα λυγρά, KTE. 
In the note to v. 167 in the Leaf-Bayfield edition we read: “ῥ᾽: 
probably a corruption of an original ¢’ = ἑ, as in 158 above, A 524, 
&c.’ (Similarly in Mr. Leaf’s large edition.) Now, however the 
case may stand with the other verses cited, I am pretty well con- 
vinced that the notion that ῥ᾽ here represents εἶ = ἑ is wrong, and 
for this reason. After the statement that the king became angry 
at the monstrous accusation he had heard, we naturally expect a 
statement of what he did im consequence of his anger, or, in other 
words, we expect a sentence linked to what has gone before by a 
conjunction meaning ‘so,’ ‘therefore,’ ‘accordingly’: and that is just 
what the traditional text gives us in ῥ᾽ = dpa (οὖν, δή). Ὁ 

An οὖν or δή standing after the μέν Ἰη the first member of a μὲν----δὲ 

complex and introducing to the Greek mind the whole complex, to 
the modern mind the 8-clause, is a phaenomenon so common in 
Attic Greek that it ought to be needless to cite passages. However, 
inasmuch as the first chapter of the Anabasis seems to be commonly 
misread, it may be well to place side by side with the Homeric 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), pp. 21-22. ] 


Homer 167 


period just quoted the following: Xen. An. i. 1, I sq. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἠσθένει 
Δαρεῖος καὶ ὑπώπτευε τελευτὴν τοῦ βίου, ἐβούλετό of τὼ παῖδε ἀμφοτέρω 
παρεῖναι" ὃ μὲν οὖν πρεσβύτερος παρὼν ἐτύγχανε, Κῦρον δὲ μεταπέμπεται ἀπὸ — 
τῆς ἀρχῆς κτὲέ., (--- παρόντος οὖν τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου Κῦρον μεταπέμπεται κτὲ.), 
4. 1. τ, 4 βουλεύεται ὅπως μήποτε ἔτι ἔσται ἐπὶ τῷ ἀδελφῷ, ἀλλ᾽, ἢν δύνηται, 
βασιλεύσει ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου - Παρύσατις μὲν δὴ ἡ μήτηρ ὑπῆρχε φιλοῦσα αὐτὸν 
μᾶλλον ἢ τὸν βασιλεύοντα, ὅστις δ᾽ ἀφικνοῖτο τῶν παρὰ βασιλέως πρὸς αὐτὸν 
πάντας οὕτω διατιθεὶς ἀπεπέμπετο ὥστε ἑαυτῷ μᾶλλον φίλους εἶναι ἢ βασιλεῖ, 
καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ δὲ βαρβάρων ἐπεμελεῖτο ὡς πολεμεῖν τε ἱκανοὶ εἴησαν καὶ 
εὐνοικῶς ἔχοιεν αὐτῷ, τὴν δὲ Ἑλληνικὴν δύναμιν ἤθροιζεν ὡς μάλιστα ἐδύνατο 
ἐπικρυπτόμενος, ὅπως ὅτι ἀπορασκευότατον λάβοι βασιλέα - ὧδε οὖν ἐποιεῖτο 
τῆν συλλογήν. In this passage the connection of thought seems 
pretty clearly to demand the text as given above. The words 
τῷ Κύρῳ after ὑπῆρχε disturb the connection of thought, and were 
probably added by some one who did not understand the construc- 
tion ὑπῆρχε φιλοῦσα = ἤδη ἐφίλει. The words of Plutarch in “γέρα. 2, ἡ 
δὲ μήτηρ ὑπῆρχε τὸν Κῦρον μᾶλλον φιλοῦσα, seem to show that τῷ Κύρῳ 
was not in Plutarch’s text. (Plutarch [4réox. 1] and Lucian [Aisz¢. 
conscr. 23] read at the beginning of the Azadasis what’ is probably 
the right order A. καὶ Π. παῖδες γίγνονται δύο.) Similarly the word 
᾿Αρταξέρξην was added after τὸν βασιλεύοντα by some reader. ἑαυτῷ 
seems necessary after ὥστε because of the contrast with βασιλεῖ. 
map ἑαυτῷ is contrasted with παρὰ βασιλέως: so βαρβάρων with the 
subsequent Ἑλληνικὴν. τὸν βασιλεύοντα followed (twice) by a form of 
βασιλεύς (βασιλέως, βασιλεῖ) is neat and very Greek. 


DE @ANATOI KAKOI ET INFORMI LETO. 


Apud Homerum I 173-5 Helena Priamo dicit : ὡς ὄφελεν θάνατός 
μοι ἁδεῖν κα KOs ὁππότε δεῦρο | vice σῷ ἑπόμην θάλαμον γνωτούς τε λιποῦσα, | 
παῖδά. τε τηλυγέτην καὶ ὁμηλικίην ἐρατεινήν. Qui locus male habuit 
Leaf, virum Ὁμηρικώτατον, qui in utraque editione inter alia hoc 
adnotat : “173. θάνατος . . ἁδεῖν, a curious phrase apparently founded 
on the familiar ἥνδανε βουλή. Sed quam ἢ. 1. odorari sibi visus est 
vir ille doctissimus difficultatem, speciosiorem eam equidem quam 
veriorem esse arbitror. Vix opus esse puto ut lectorem admoneam 
κακὸς adiectivum a Leafio epitheti quod dicitur ornantis loco haberi, 
ut θάνατος κακὸς eodem redeat quo simplex θάνατος : quod prorsus 


1| MS. note dated Nov. 29, Igor. ] 


168 Greck Authors 


aliter se habere equidem opinor. Satis enim diu iam est cum in 
margine editiunculae cuiusdam priorum Iliadis carminum meum 
ipsius in usum significavi et T 173 et A 284 κακός adiectivum cum 
substantivo suo ita in unum quasi coalescere atque cohaerere ut ex 
duobus si non unum vocabulum at notio una fiat. Hoc enim loco 
Achilles laudatur qui pugnam adversam sive cladem ab Achivis 
defendat. Poetae verba haec sunt: ἕρκος ᾿Αχαιοῖσιν πέλεται πολέμοιο 
κακοῖο. In altero autem loco Helena id factum fuisse optat ut 
mortem sibimet ipsa conscisceret priusquam Paridem sequeretur. 
Solus vero, quod sciam, rationem illius θάνατος κακὸς recte explicavit 
Keep nostras, qui ad ea verba annotationem tam veram quam 
brevem apposuit hance: “2. ¢. ‘suicide’’’. Conferre possumus A 10 
γοῦσον κακήν --- λοιμόν. --- Atqui, nisi me fallo, eodem modo ea verba 
intellexit Vergilius, qui, ut aperte confitear, in causa est ut haec 
nunc scribam. Is enim Aen. 12, 603 mortem quam sibi ipsa con- 
scivit regina Latinorum sic narrat : et nodum i#formis deti trabe nec- 
tit ab alta; qui versus vix dubium esse potest quin maiorem qui- 
dem partem ex Od. ἃ 278 expressus sit. Nam illic Epicasta ad 
inferos descendisse dicitur ἁψαμένη βρόχον αἰπὺν ἀφ᾽ ὑψηλοῖο μελάθρου, 
postquam nexit nodum ab alta trabe. At enim verborum quae sunt 
informis lett nobis est ratio reddenda, quae verba mihi quidem ex 
illo θάνατος κακός Expressa esse videntur. Neque admiratione dignum 
est si Vergilius in ea carminis sui parte quae Iliadem plus quam 
Odysseam respicit atque redolet componenda dum forte aliquando 
Odysseam compilat, quod inde desumpserit, id Iliadeo, ut ita dicam, 
flosculo exornare studuerit’. Graece interpretari possumus Vergilii 
versum hunc in modum: καὶ ἅπτεται βρόχον θανάτου κακοῦ ad ὑψηλοῦ 
μελάθρου. 


ON LUCIAN, TIMON 18. 


In his interesting Notes on Lucian*, Professor Francis G. Allinson 
discusses Timon 18 in a way that I cannot believe to be sound: 1 
venture, therefore, to offer another interpretation and discussion of 


1 [For conflation from Homer, see Sophocles, 77achinians, 145 sq. with Jebb’s note. 
See also above, Studies in Sophocles’s 7rachinians, Ὁ. 7, note 1.] 

*[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXIX 
(1898), pp. vii-ix.] 

* Published in Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XVII, 
pp. xi.—xv. 


Lucian 169 


that passage and to seek to maintain the integrity of the traditional 
text where Mr. Allinson believes it to be corrupt. 

It seems probable to Professor Allinson that Lucian wrote κοσκίνου 
in this passage, instead of the traditional xopivov. Before examining 
his three arguments as such, I may be pardoned for dwelling for a 
moment on a minor but not altogether unimportant point. 

In Plato, Gorg. 493 B, it appears highly probable that in the 
words ἑτέρῳ τοιούτῳ τετρημένῳ κοσκίνῳ the participle τετρημένῳ is merely 
a gloss on τοιούτῳ (See Mr Adam’s note on τῶν τοιούτων καὶ ἀκουσίων 
in Apol. 26 A, and Thompson on Gorg. 493 B.) The view that 
τετρημένῳ is a gloss seems to be supported by the next-sentence in the 
Gorgias. It may be added that Professor Allinson seems guilty of 
an inaccuracy when he speaks of a “perforated sieve.” τετρημένος (30, 
too, τετρυπημένος) may mean either “perforated” or “having inter- 
stices.” 

Of Professor Allinson’s three arguments I am tempted to say, 
στέγειν ov δύνανται. In the first place, the reference to the jar of the 
Danaids does not “immediately” follow the clause in which κοφίνου 
occurs. What immediately follows is a clause involving quite a 
different figure and standing as a barrier between the κόφινος and the 
πίθος. We need not, therefore, treat the second and third arguments 
until we have examined the earlier part of the passage in its relation 
to what follows. 

Wealth, reluctant to revisit Timon, asks Zeus: ‘Will he (Timon) 
ever stop bailing me out as fast as he can, as though from a basket 
with a hole in it, before I have wholly flowed in; wishing to get 
ahead of the inflow, lest, tumbling in faster than he can bail me out, 
I overflood him?” This translation fails to do justice to the original 
in one particular,—that the words, domep ἐκ κοφίνου τετρυπημένου precede 
the metaphor. Wealth is naturally first thought of as gold, with 
which conception a basket is not at all inconsistent. Then wealth 
is said to flow in, an easy shift of language,—in fact, hardly a shift 
at all (cf., 6. g., diall. mar. 12, 1; Jupp. trag. 2; de merc. cond. 7; 

_and—particularly—diall, inf. 11, 4). But the notion of flowing, as 
specifically applicable to water, is insisted on in ἐπιρροήν. But the 
figure shifts in the next clause. One need not insist on the fact that 

- in coupling ὑπέραντλος and ἐπιπεσών Lucian is uniting liquid with solid; 


170 Greek Authors 


ἐπικλύσω strictly excludes the image of any small vessel and suggests 
that we have passed, unwarned, to the bailing of a leaky ship (cf. 
navig. 16). This might be thought decisive against the proposed 
change of reading, but there is more to follow. 

The sentence beginning with ὥστε is to be connected with the 
preceding by supplying a slight ellipsis. “And so [if I go to him] I 
expect to carry water to the jar of the Danaids and to bail in to no 
purpose, because the vessel is not watertight, but what runs in will 
be poured out almost before it has run in; so much wider [in pro- 
portion to the inflow] is the gap in the jar and [so] unhindered the 
exit [of the water].” In this sentence I would call attention first 
to the fact that the position of Wealth has shifted. Before, he was 
the thing that flowed in, was bailed out, tumbled in, threatened to 
overflood; now he expects to act as water-carrier and bail in like 
water—what but his unpersonified self, wealth? 

Again, we see here even more clearly than before how Lucian 
becomes the victim of his own metaphor, associated metaphors 
fading one into the other, and the element of personification tending 
to still greater confusion. 

Again, it seems quite plain that the only part of the traditional 
imagery of the myth of the Danaids that Lucian has distinctly in 
mind here is the pouring of water into a broken jar. Nothing is 
said of the sieve when the jar is spoken of. Indeed, it would be 
out of place. It is only the leakiness of the receptacle that is in 
point. Thus Professor Allinson’s second argument is answered, and 
the third is without weight. ; 

The best parallel to the shifting metaphor in this passage—at 
least, in all Lucian—is in Timon 8, which should be carefully com- 
pared. In the elevated language of other Greek writers we find 
the same tendency. Cf. Soph. O. T. 22-30, Ant. 531-535, El. 1290 
sq. Another excellent example is to be found in Plato, Apol. 30 
E-31 (man for horse; gnat(?) for gadfly). 

I note in conclusion the modern Greek phrase ξεπατωμένο καλάθιτεε 
“unordentlicher Mensch” (Jannaris, Echo, p. 25). 


EMENDATIONS IN LYSIAS.1 
Or. 15, 5 σκέψασθε δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐὰν ἱκανὸν γένηται κτὲ. 
1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VII (1893), p. 19. 


Lysias Sappho 171 


Read εἰ---γέγενηται. The omission of γε- in γέγενηται may have led 
to the change of «i to ἐάν. 

Or. 18, τ ἐνθυμήθητε---οἷόι τινες ὄντες πολῖται καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ ὧν προσήκον- 
τες κτέ. 

Read οἱ προσήκοντες. The καὶ... καὶ form a correlation, ‘both our- 
selves and our relations’. Possible corruption from καὶ τῶν δικαίων 
just below? 

Or. το, 25—xal λαβεῖν ἑκκαίδεκα μνᾶς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ ἂν (ds ἃς C, as Scheibe) 
ἔχοι ἀναλίσκειν εἰς τὰ τῆς τριηραρχῶς. 

—‘and to get sixteen minas on it (the φιάλη), which (adopting 
Scheibe’s as) he (Demos) Aad fo spend (?) on the details of the trierarchy.’ 
Would it not be better to write as ἔδει ἀναλίσκειν ἡ Can we parallel 
exactly ἔχω with the infin. in the sense of ‘have to’ — ‘be obliged to’? 
Ἔχω ἀναλίσκειν would naturally mean either ‘I am able to spend’ 
(= δύναμαι 4.), or, rarely, ‘I know how to spend’ (= ἐπίσταμαι 4. : 
Soph. Anz. 270 sqq., cf. the noteworthy expression in Soph. 0.7. 
119 where there seems to be confusion both of language and of 
thought). The ease with which EAE! could become EXO! needs no 
comment. 

Or. 23, 14 ἐπεὶ δὲ ὑπερήμερος ἐγένετο, ἐξέτισε τὴν δίκην, καθότι ἔπειθε. 

For ἔπειθε read ἐπετέθη, ‘was assessed, or imposed.’ 

Or. 31, 24 Ti οὖν βουληθέντες ὑμεῖς τοῦτον δοκιμάσαιτε; Add the neces- 
sary ἄν after οὖν; it might easily have been omitted in such a 
position. 


NOTES ON SAPPHO 1.1 


The punctuation of this poem does not satisfy me in an important 
point. To me it is one long sentence from ai ποτα in v. 5 to the end. 
I would place a period after ἔλθ᾽, after ὑπαζεύξαισα a dash, and after 
ἐθέλοισα (24) a dash, thus marking off the episode. ἔλθε μοι καὶ viv 
will then get its rights as the conclusion to αἴ πότα κἀτέρωτα ἦλθες. ποτα 
κἀτέρωτα and καὶ viv are clearly correlative. In other words, put a 
period after ἔλθ᾽ (5), drop vv. 9-24, and the original scheme saute 
aux yeux. (This incidentally proves the construction of χρύσον, viz. 
that it belongs to δόμον and cannot be taken with dpp’.) dpy’ ὑπαζεύ 
ξαισα Serves as the stepping-stone to the episode. 


1TMS. note. ] 


172 Greek Authors 


ON SIMONIDES, 4: 


The striking expression βωμὸς ὃ τάφος used by Simonides (* 4. [9.] 
Bergk) concerning τῶν ἐν Θερμοπύλαις θανόντων seems to have found 
an echo among the Attic poets. I have noted the following apparent 
reminiscences : 

Aeschylus, Choephoroe 106. 

αἰδουμένη got βωμὸν ὡς τύμβον πατρός. 
Euripides, Adcestis 995 5664. 
μηδὲ νεκρῶν ὡς φθιμένων χῶμα νομιζέσθω 
τύμβος σᾶς ἀλόχου, θεοῖσι δ᾽ ὁμοίως 
τιμάσθω, σέβας ἐμπόρων. 
(Cf. the context and the Schol. ad loc.) 
Aristophanes, Zhesmophortazusae 887 sq. 
κακὴ κακῶς τἄρ᾽ ἐξόλοιο κἀξολεῖ, 
ὅστις γε τολμᾷς σῆμα τὸν βωμὸν καλεῖν. 
(Cf. context.) 


NOTE ON XENOPHON’S HELLENICA II, 3, 16.? 


In Xenophon’s Hellenica, 2. 3, 16, a slight correction is necessary. 
Thus: εἰ δέ, ὅτι τριάκοντά ἐσμεν καὶ οὐχ els, ἧττόν τι οἴει <> ὥσπερ 
τυραννίδος ταύτης τῆς ἀρχῆς χρῆναι ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, εὐήθης εἶ, In Lysias 12, 
80 we read μηδ᾽ ὧν φασι μέλλειν πράξειν πλείω χάριν αὐτοῖς ἴστε ἢ ὧν 
ἐποίησαν ὀργίζεσθε. Here ὀργίζεσθε is illogical for ὀργὴν ἴστε (or ἔχετε). 
It seems probable that Lysias had at first intended to end the sen- 
tence with ὀργὴν ἔχετε (ἔχετε because he had already used ἴστε with — 
χάριν); but he decided afterwards to vary the construction still fur- 
ther: hence ὀργίζεσθε. We find something similar (in part) to this 
in Lysias 16, 11 ὅτι τῶν νεωτέρων ὅσοι περὶ κύβους ἢ πότους ἢ τὰς τοιαύτας 
ἀκολασίας τυγχάνουσι τὰς διατριβὰς ποιούμενοι, πάντας αὐτοὺς ὄψεσθέ μοι 
διαφόρους ὄντας καὶ πλεῖστα τούτους περὶ ἐμοῦ λογοποιοῦντας καὶ ψευδομένους. 
Here, if Lysias had not had τούτους (after πλεῖστα) already in mind 
when he wrote the beginning of the sentence, or else had he not 
carefully revised his written sentence, we should pretty clearly have 
πάντας τούτους ὄψεσθε. ᾿ 


[From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 413-414. 
* [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), p. 22.] 


Xenophon 173 
DE XENOPHONTIS ANABASI.+ 


Ei opinioni quam de Xenophontis Anabasis quattuor libris pri- 
oribus separatim atque mature editis in Studiis suis Xenophonteis 
defendit Hartmanus haud paulum ponderis inde accedit quod locum 
ex ea Anabasis parte curiosa felicitate insignem in Panegyrico suo 
respexit Isocrates. Nam conferantur inter sese loci qui sunt 


Xen. Anab. 2. 4, 4. Isocr. Pan. 149. 

Οὐ γάρ ποτε ἑκών ye βουλήσεται καὶ τελευτῶντες (de Persis agitur 
(de Persarum rege agitur) ἡμᾶς | a Graecis compluries devictis) ὑπ᾽ 
ἐλθόντας eis τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἀγγεῖλαι ὡς | (f. ἐπ᾽) αὐτοῖς τοῖς βασιλείοις x a- 
ἡμεῖς τοσοίδε ὄντες ἐνικῶμεν Βασιλέα | ταγέλαστοι γεγόνασιν. 


a... % Lat U4 > Le Ν ,ὔ 
ἐπὶ ταῖς θύραις αὐτοῦ καὶ καταγελά- 





σαντες ἀπήλθομεν. 


Cum in superioribus iam et ἀνάβασιν illam et κατάβασιν summatim 
descripserit Isocrates (cf. 145 sqq.), nonne apparet eum verbis 
modo excerptis ipsa ea Xenophontis verba quae adposui tacite 
laudare? Ad talium rerum peritos et incorruptos iudices securus 
provoco, 


SCHOLIA IN XENOPHONTIS ANABASIN.? 


I, 1. 2. Κῦρον δὲ μεταπέμπεται ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἧς αὐτὸν σατράπην ἐποίησε 
omissis continuo insequentibus καὶ στρατηγὸν δὲ... ἀθροίζονται, quae 
verba particulam efficiunt scholii antiqui quod plene sic fere fuit 
Scriptum: «σατράπην αὐτὸν ἐποίησε Λυδίας τε καὶ Φρυγίας THs μεγάλης καὶ 
Καππαδοκίας.» καὶ στρατηγὸν δὲ αὐτὸν ἀπέδειξε πάντων ὅσοι εἰς Καστωλοῦ 
Πεδίον ἀθροίζονται. Cuius scholii ex ea parte quae contextui Xeno- 
phonteo inserta aetatem tulit elucet in Anab. I, 9. 7, unde supplenda 
desumpsi, rescribendum esse στρατηγὸς δὲ καὶ πάντων ἀπεδείχθη «ὅσ᾽» οις 
καθήκει εἰς Καστωλοῦ Πεδίον ἀθροίζεσθαι. 


Verba quae sunt καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων δὲ ἔχων ὁπλίτας ἀνέβη τριακοσίους 
(= καὶ τῶν Ἑ. δὲ ὁπλίτας τριακοσίους ἔχων ἀνέβη) ἄρχοντα δὲ αὐτῶν Ἐξενίαν 
Παρράσιον narrationis filum interrumpunt. Quominus vero ea Xeno- 
phonti abiudicemus obstant duo loci, quorum alter est Anab. I, 3. 18 
καὶ ἐὰν μὲν ἣ πρᾶξις ἢ παραπλησία οἵᾳπερ καὶ πρόσθεν ἐχρῆτο τοῖς Ἐξενίου 


1 [From Revue de Philologie Vol. XXVIII (1904), p. 255.] 
7(MS. notes. ] ‘ 


174 Greek Authors 


(sic Dobraeus pro tradito ξένοις), ἕπεσθαι καὶ ἡμᾶς, καὶ μὴ κακίους εἶναι 
τῶν πρόσθεν τούτῳ συναναβάντων, alter autem est Anab. I, 4. 12 καὶ οὐκ 
ἔφασαν ἰέναι ἐὰν μὴ τὶς (i. 6. Cyrus) αὐτοῖς χρήματα διδῷ ὅσαπερ τοῖς προ- 
τέροις μετὰ Κύρου ἀναβᾶσι παρὰ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ (codd. τοῦ Kvpov)—xai 
ταῦτα οὐκ ἐπὶ πολέμῳ ἰόντος, ἀλλὰ καλοῦντος τοῦ πατρός (quae verba dum 
exscribo Cobetum plerumque sequor). At nihilo minus non statim 
atque ab initio haec a Xenophonte verba accessisse facile crediderim, 
quippe quae, ut supra indicatum est, narrationem salebrosam red- 
dant; etenim his verbis omissis Tissaphernis ficta amicitia cum odio 
vero eius arte atque luculenter componitur. Fortasse etiam post eos 
scriptos locos quos supra laudavi omissam narrationis particulam 
minus callide neque sic ut suturae non apparerent adsuit Xenophon: 

Cf. Hdt. 3. 1 Ἐπὶ τοῦτον οὖν τὸν "Apacw Καμβύσης ὁ Κύρου ἐστρατεύετο 
ἄγων καὶ ἄλλους, τῶν ἦρχε, καὶ Ελλήνων Ἴωνάς τε καὶ Αἰολέας. 





> 
3 





mn Do 





HORACE 
ON THE FIRST ODE OF HORACE. 


Enough has been written on the first Ode of Horace to make one 
hesitate before adding to that ἄχθος ἀρούρης. It is only a firm convic- 
tion, based on much careful study and thought, that the first Ode 
as printed and pointed in the current editions is but a travesty of 
Horace that has impelled me to the present writing. 

It is the plain duty of an interpreter of this poem to answer two 
plain questions: (1) What is Horace driving at? (2) How did he 
say what he had to say? These two questions and their answers 
are closely bound up together; but I will try to maintain such 
separation as the case admits of. Let us see then first what Horace 
is driving at. 

The poem may be divided in several ways. For the purpose of 
our immediate enquiry it may be divided into a personal part con- 
sisting of vv. 1-2 and vv. 29-36 and a non-personal part consisting 
of vv. 3-28. The gist of the non-personal part (vv. 3-28) is plain 
(or ought to be so) to an attentive reader. What is it? It might 
be hastily said that it is an elaboration of the theme: Trahit sua 
quemque voluptas. But that is worse than false: it is only a half- 
truth. The real theme is: Trahit sua quemque voluptas, cui volup- 
tati aliena semper opponitur voluptas. We have in these verses 
three contrasts of pursuits of men, the first in vv. 3-10, the second 
in vv. 11-18, the third in vv. 19-28. In the first division (vv. 3-10) 
the favourite pursuits of nations are contrasted, in the two other 
divisions (vv. 11-18 and 19-28) the pursuits of various classes of 
men are contrasted. But before going further on this line I must 
take up the question of the punctuation and interpretation of 
vv. 3-6. 

In vv. 11-18 the reference to the farmer and the reference to the 
skipper are set off sharply and neatly the one against the other. 
The gaudentem at the head of ν. 11 is balanced in form (though 
not in sense) with the Juctantem at the head of v. 15. It is signifi- 


1 [From the Classica] Review, Vol. XVI (1902), pp. 308-401. 


178 Latin Authors 


cant that it is the latter and not the former term that but formally 
subserves the balance aimed at. In vv. 19-28 we find the est qui at 
the head of v. 19 answered by the multos at the head of v. 23. And 
this brings us around to the sunt quos of v. 3. What answers to it? 
Surely not the hunc and illum of vv. 7 and 9: these words merely 
introduce subdivisions like τὸν μὲν... τὸν δὲ, No; sunt quos must be 
answered by something in v. 6, and that something is clearly 
terrarum dominos = Romanos, whether Horace had Virgil’s happy 
phrase in his head or not. All this seems so plain that it fairly 
makes one rub his eyes to find the latest editors ignoring it. The 
late Lucian Mueller to be sure puts ‘mit dem feinsinnigen J. Rutgers’ 
a; after nobilis (v. 5). _But—mirabile dictu—although he writes 
of v. 6 as a whole—what were better written of terrarum dominos 
alone—, ‘mit Emphase an den Anfang gesetzt, im Gegensatz zu sunt 
quos—iuvat, he yet takes terrarum dominos as appositive to deos. 
But perhaps the good punctuation may outweigh the bad annotation. 

Perhaps I may properly suggest at this point that in vv. 3-5 
Horace—primarily, it should seem, for reasons of metre—did not 
continue the construction ef collegisse formally but merely infor- 
mally. What he wrote, however, I venture to think equivalent to 
sunt quos curriculo pulverem Olympicum collegisse iuvat maaie 
fervidis evitasse rotis palmaque nobilitatos fuisse. 

To return now to our interrupted discussion of the general mean- 
ing of the poem, we have in vv. 3-10 the pursuits of nations (Greeks 
on the one hand, Romans on the other) contrasted. In vv. 11-28 
we have contrasted the pursuits of various classes of men; in vv. 
11-18 we find the farmer and skipper, in vv. 19-28 the man of 
ease and leisure and those that follow the strenuous life, whether 
in war (vv. 23-25) or in the chase (vv. 25-28). 

But how is all this, the non-personal part of the poem, connected 
with the rest, the personal part? It could only be, it should seem, 
by joining on to the non-personal contrasts a personal one, 7. @., 
inasmuch as the poem is addressed by Horace to Maecenas, a con- 
trast between Maecenas and Horace. But in the traditional text 
we have nothing of the sort. Me doctarum hederae cet. follows 
what we have been discussing just as if the matter had all been after 
all a little sermon on the text ‘Trahit sua quemque voluptas’. But 
that that is not the burden of Horace’s song has been clearly set 


Horace ; 179 


forth above. Are we not then led to look with more favour upon, 
nay even to accept, the old conjecture te for me in v. 29, detestatum 
editoribus though it be? Modern Horatians might, I venture to 
think, be about worse business than reading, marking, and inwardly 
digesting Wolf’s Commentatio ad Hor. Carm. I, 1, 29 (Litterarische 
Analekten II, 261-276). Orelli to be sure hints that Wolf may not 
have been in earnest; but perhaps there was something wrong with 
Orelli’s sense of humour. Wolf was not playing a practical joke; 
and it is needless to say that what he wrote is well written, whatever 
you may think of the view he takes. To me at least the Commen- 
tatio is convincing, although I do not think that Wolf made all he 
might have of his case. I have advanced above in favour of te an 
argument from the contrasts in the ode that he did not make use of. 
But he has argued well in favour of the need of a reference to 
Maecenas at the close of the ode in a more pointed form than that 
which the traditional text presents. Indeed, does not a very recent 
editor (as others had done before him) comment on the lack of a 
tu in v. 35? Wolf might indeed have said plainly (what is a fact) 
that this whole poem is just one long sentence and that the only 
place where you can put a full stop without spoiling it is at the end 
of v. 36. 

I wish to set down this poem in full in the form that I believe 
Horace meant it to bear and with a rational scheme of punctuation, 
but before doing that I would lay before the reader a set of notes 
lately drawn up in which some of the points discussed above are 
resumed and other matter pertaining to the division of the ode is 
included. 

(1) The ode deals not with the simple theme Trahit sua quemque 
voluptas but with the complex theme Trahit sua quemque voluptas, 
cui voluptati aliena voluptas semper est opposita. 

(2) If the theme were the former of the two just mentioned, such 
a climax as me...me...would be natural; but inasmuch as the 
᾿ς theme is the latter, the climax should be itself a contrast of terms. 

(3) There is throughout the ode a regular series of contrasts— 
nation contrasted with nation (Greeks Romans), class of men 
contrasted with class of men (agricola X mercator, desidiosus X 
strenuus—the strenui being represented by two classes: (@) 
milites, (b) venatores), individuals contrasted (Maecenas X Hor- 


ace). 


180 Latin Authors 


(4) The divisions of the ode should be observed. These are: 
(a) Address to Maecenas (2 vv.) + Greeks and Romans (3+ 5 
νν == VN.) = 10, 

(8) Farmer (4 vv.) and skipper (4 vv.) = ὃ vv. 

(y ) Man of ease (4 vv.) and men of action (6 vv., of which the 
last two might be dispensed with without detriment to the sense) 
a OMA 

(δ) Maecenas the lofty poet (1% vv.) and Horace the humble 
poet (414 vv.), to which is added the climax and conclusion (2 vv.) 
a OWN 

It will thus be seen that the poem falls into two divisions of 18 
vv. each and that these divisions are severally subdivided into a 
group of 10 vv. and a group of 8 vv. Furthermore, the first group 
of 10 vv. is balanced with the second group of 8 vv.; contrasted 
nations are balanced with contrasted individuals; the first two verses 
(1-2) are balanced with the last two (35-36). Again the first group 
of ὃ vv., which deals with classes of men, is balanced with the 
second group of 10 vv., which deals with classes of men, these two 
groups forming the centre and core of the poem. The whole 
scheme may be represented thus: 


{10 (2 + 8) 
Ls 


| 10 
8 (= 6 - 2) 

When we have grasped this arrangement we may perhaps see 
why vv. 27-28 were added to vv. 19-26: it was that the scheme of 
the second part of the poem (10 + 8) might match that of the first 
part (10 + 8). Is it going too far to think that this poem was 
built upon and around vv. 11-26? This question I shall take up 
presently: following is the text. 


Maecenas atavis edite regibus, 

o et praesidium et dulce decus meum, 

sunt quos curriculo pulverem Olympicum 

collegisse iuvat metaque fervidis 

evitata rotis palmaque nobilis ; 5 
terrarum dominos evehit ad deos 

hunc si mobilium turba Quiritium 

certat tergeminis tollere honoribus, 

illum si proprio condidit horreo 


Horace [8:1 


quidquid de Libycis verritur areis: LO 
zaudentem patrios findere sarculo 

agros Attalicis condicionibus 

numquam demoveas ut trabe Cypria 

Myrtoum pavidus nauta secet mare; 

luctantem Icariis fluctibus Africum 

mercator metuens otium et oppidi 

laudat rura sui, mox reficit ratis 

quassas indocilis pauperiem pati: 

est qui nec veteris pocula Massici 

nec partem solido demere de die 20 
spernit, nunc viridi membra sub arbuto 

stratus, nunc ad aquae lene caput sacrae; 

multos castra iuvant et lituo tubae 

permixtus sonitus bellaque matribus 

detestata ; manet sub love frigido 25 
venator tenerae coniugis immemor, 

seu visa est catulis cerva fidelibus, 

seu rupit teretes Marsus aper plagas: 

te doctarum hederae praemia frontium 

dis miscent superis ; me gelidum nemus 30 
Nympharumque leves cum Satyris chori 

secernunt populo—si neque tibias 

Euterpe cohibet nec Polyhymnia 

Lesboum refugit tendere barbiton—, 

quod si me lyricis vatibus inseres, 35 
sublimist feriam sidera vertice. 


Returning to the question broached above I may note that Lucian 
Mueller calls attention in his massive edition of the Odes (I, p. 131) 
to a similarity (a “merkwiirdige Aechnlichkeit” he calls it) between 
this Ode and the first Satire. That similarity is, I venture to think, 
to be traced in the Ode in just one place, viz. vv. 15-18, and it 
consists in the fact that the mercator while on the sea in bad weather 
wishes himself snug at home in his native village. He is in so far 
discontented with his lot and laudat diversa sequentis. Now this is 
in the part of the first Ode about which it has been queried above 
whether it were not the nucleus of the whole composition, and that 
fact may afford us some reason for assenting to that view. Vv. 
11-18 are very symmetrically arranged, more so than any other part 
of the poem, and in thought they are most closely connected with 
vv. 19-26 (to which latter verses it has been suggested above that 


1 [But see Professor Earle’s retraction of this reading in next article. ] 


182 Latin Authors 


Horace added vv. 27 and 28 ἐκ δευτέρας φροντίδος). Vv. 3-11 are not 
so symmetrical but make up the rest of the non-personal part of 
the poem. In short, whether we do or do not assume, and it is, of 
course, mere matter of curious speculation, that vv. 11-26 are the 
original nucleus of the poem, it seems tolerably clear that a good 
deal of the difficulty in the interpretation of the poem is due to the 
grafting upon an originally impersonal poem of a personal poem, 
the personal part consisting clearly of vv. 1-2 and vv. 29-36. That 
the personal part was grafted on the impersonal and not vice versa 
seems fairly clear from the fact that vv. 1-2 + vv. 29-36 make up 
a total of 10 verses, a number not divisible by 4. On the other hand, 
vv. 3-26 are = 24 verses = 6 X 4. Thus working from the point of 
view of the stanza and not, as above, from the point of view of the 
divisions of the poem according to sense, we can see a reason why 
vv. 27-28—-verses so eminently Horatian that their authorship ought 
never to have been called in question—have been added, viz. to 
round out the number 36. I am willing to risk the charge of incon- 
sistency that my double demonstration (if demonstration it be) lays 
me open to. 

One more point. With te for me in v. 29 there is a clear contrast 
between dis miscent superis in v. 30 and secernunt populo (=profano 
vulgo) in v. 32. Again, the quod si of v. 35 means ‘but if’ and intro- 
duces a clause contrasted with me gelidum nemus ... populo (the 
si neque .. nec .. clause is a mere parenthetical proviso=modo . . 
cohibeat...). But if this be so, the last verse must have a dif- 
ferent meaning from that usually assigned to it and will refer not to 
Horace’s pride but to his fame and dignity. Perhaps, it may be 
added, we should in v. 35 write rather Lyricis Vatibus. 

I have written on a very interesting subject at greater length than 
I had expected to; but perhaps I may be forgiven for adding in clos- 
ing a quotation and suggesting a query. In the English-Latin edition 
of Horace published in London in 1750 (‘Begun by David Watson, 
M.A. of St. Leonard’s College, St. Andrew’s; Revised, Carried on, 
and Published by 5. Patrick, LL.D.’), we read in the ‘Key’ to the 
first Ode: 


‘After he has shewn, that every Man has a different choice, accord- 
ing to his own peculiar Will and Fancy, in the pursuit of Happiness 
here, he compliments his Patron in these Words: Hederae corona ex 
hedera, quae sunt praemia doctarum frontium, miscent te, meum 


Horace 183 


Patronum & Fautorem, Dis superis. The Ivy, or Crown of Ivy, the 
Reward of learned Men, rank you, my Patron and Supporter, among 
the Gods above. As for himself, he, as all Men of good Sense and 
Education, keeps himself at a distance from his Maecenas, saying, 
Gelidum nemus & leves chori nympharum cum satyris secernunt me 
a populo. The cool Grove and light Choirs of Nymphs with the 
Satyrs separate me from the Vulgar. If the Muses Euterpe and 
Polyhymnia will hear my Invocations, and you Maecenas, patronize 
my Compositions, feriam sidera sublimi vertice, 1 shall touch the 
Stars with the top of my Head, shall reach at the highest pitch of 
Fame, which will last forever—That this is Horace’s Meaning, is 
plain from OpE XXX. Boox III. where he says,’ &c. 

In the corresponding place in the ‘Annotations’ we read: 

‘All the editions of Horace had Me formerly, till of late it was ob- 
served by the Right Reverend Dr. Hare Bishop of Chichester, that 
if Horace wrote me, he had no need to wish for a cool Grove, for the 
Company of the Nymphs and Satyrs, to be ranked among the Lyrick 
Poets, and to touch the Stars with the Top of his Head, when he was 
already among the Gods above, eating and drinking Ambrosia and 
Nectar. We must suppose therefore that Horace is not speaking of 
himself, but complimenting his Patron Maecenas, in saying that the 
Ivy-Crown, the Reward of learned Men, exalted him among the Gods 
above. We are not to imagine Horace was so ignorant of the way of 
complimenting his Patron, as to prefer himself to him, upon whom he 
was in Gratitude passing a compliment.’ 

This and more to the same purport: the date (see the end of {πὸ 
‘Key’ to Ode I) ‘this present year of our Blessed Lord 1739’. Let 
the reader—that ‘gentle’ and ‘indulgent’ creature of an earlier day— 
now open one of the latest modern editions, read text and notes, and 
ask himself the question: Is interpretation a failure, or are the Hora- 
tians played out? 


NOTES ON HORACE.! 


Although in C. 1. 2 I do not understand vv. 21-24, unless they are 
to be read as a question and with acuisse understood by zeugma (in 
the sense of commisisse) with pugnas (civis acuisse ferrum being 
taken in the sense, demanded by the emphasis on civis, of in civis 
acutum esse ferrum), yet Iam convinced of several things about the 
poem. These are that we have the poem practically, at least, as 
Horace wrote it and without any spurious additions; that it is his 


1[From the Classical Review, Vol. XVIII (1904), pp. 391-392.] 


184 Latin Authors 


earliest attempt in the Sapphic stanza; that he consciously imitated 
in it Catullus’s eleventh poem (in vv. 5-20). The last point, which 
I have treated very briefly in the Revue de Philologie (xxvii. 270)*, 
I consider specially important; but I would simply call attention to 
it again here, adding, for the comfort of such as still believe vv. 5-8 
in Horace’s poem to be spurious, that terruit Urbem, | terrwit Gentes 
finds a very curious and noteworthy echo in the movit Achillem, | 
movit Aiacem of C. 2. 4. 4 Sq. 

Some queer things are commonly printed as part of Horace’s 
text. But because Bentley was at fault in grammar is no reason why 
we should prefer in C. 1. 3. 37 nil mortalibus arduist (or ardui est) in- 
stead of nil mortalibus arduum est (or arduumst). The sense de- 
manded by the context is not nil ardui mortales habent, but nil adeo 
arduum est ut id mortales non scandant. Nor because Bentley re- 
jected de Prado’s simple and rather obvious correction quanta for 
quinta in C. τ. 13. 16, should others do the same, even though they 
do not follow Bentley in accepting Porphyrion’s absurd explanation 
but write equally edifying matter about the quinta essentia. 

In C. 1. 12 v. 45 is a troublesome bit, and I am not sure that I 
understand what a tree that grows occulto aevo is. For a time I 
thought that Professor Bennett’s occulte for occulto was right; but 
I now see that the traditional crescit occulto velut arbor aevo is de- 
fended by two other passages in Horace. These are C. 2. 2. 5 vivet 
extento Proculeius aevo (which also proves Heinsius’s arvo to be 
wrong) and Epistt. 1. 1. 80 multis occulto crescit res faenore (cf. in 
the same poem, v. 64, et maribus Curiis et decantata Camillis with 
C. 1. 12. 41 sq. hunc et incomptis Curium capillis | utilem bello tulit 
et Camillum). I may add here that I now see that C. 1. 15. 31 sub- 
limi fugies mollis anhelitu is good proof that I was wrong in printing 
in this Journal? (xvi. 400) sublimis feriam sidera vertice, instead of 
sublimi feriam sidera vertice, in C. τ. 1. 36. 

Before leaving C. 1. 12 I wish to make what I believe is a necessary 
correction in v. 55. Moritz Haupt could not endure sive subiectos 
Orientis orae, and proposed for it seu superiectos Orientis orae— 
a conjecture which received the unmerited honour of a place in 
Zangemeister’s Index. A simple correction of the verse seems to 


1 [See below, p 209.] 
2 [See last article. ] 


Horace 185 


me to be the substitution for orae of a word for which it could easily 
have been miswritten, to wit, aurae. Cf. Lucan Phars. 1. 16, with 
Francken’s notes. 

I will add here two notes on S. 1. 6. In v. 4 Palmer saw that 
imperitarunt, the least well attested reading of the three imperi- 
tarint, imperitarent, imperitarunt, was not impossible Latin. I 
would go further and affirm that the tibi in v. 3 makes imperitarunt 
alone possible; for the sense is non quod avum habuisti maternum 
atque paternum olim qui magnis legiombus imperitarunt. The 
editors seem to have understood—subconsciously—tibi as tuus—a 
very different thing in such a context. Again in vv. 42-44 we read 
At hic, si plostra ducenta | concurrantque foro tria funera, magna 
sonabit | cornua quod vincatque tubas. Here Heindorf’s pointing 
restores the sense of the sentence as a whole; but neither he nor 
anyone else, so far as I know, has observed that tubas is needless 
after cornua and that nothing is said in the apodosis of the sen- 
tence about the noise of the wagons. I would read cornua quod 
vincatque rotas. It is hardly necessary to remark that this reading 
introduces a very neat chiasmus. 


NOTE ON HORACE, CARMINA 1 3, 1-8.? 


If the first two stanzas of this ode mean what most editors have 
thought they meant, two things follow: first, there is no reason why 
the first stanza should have been the first and the second stanza the 
second—indeed, it would be a great improvement if the two stanzas 
were to change places ; secondly, Horace wrote arrant nonsense here; 
for surely no one that gave thought to what he wrote would, in the 
days before navigation by steam, have begun a poem addressed to a 
friend about to sail for England on this wise: 


O ship that bear’st my friend away, 
If thou shalt bring him safe to land, 
May western gales speed well thy way, 
Until thou reachest that far strand. 
But these two stanzas do not mean what most of the editors have 


thought they meant. Among recent editors of the Odes Pro- 
fessor Bennett alone seems to have rightly explained the connection 
of thought in this passage. The explanation amounts to this, that the 


1 [From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXIV 
(1903), pp. xxii-xxiii.] 


186 Latin Authors 


words finibus atticis reddas incolumem et serves animae dimidium 
meae express—not the condition of a benediction, but—the result 
of a desired action (regat). In other words, sic is not=hac lege or 
hac condicione, but is=hoc modo. Mr. Bennett writes: “We should 
naturally expect these words [Sic .. . Vergilium] to be followed 
by an ut-clause (ut reddas, serves), instead of which, by a simple 
anacoluthon, the poet employs jussive [read: precative] subjunctives 
(reddas, serves), explanatory of sic,—‘may the goddess guide thee 
thus [better: may the west wind guide thee thus] ; bring Vergil un- 
harmed to the Attic shores, and save the half of my life’ ” This 
explanation of the connection of thought, though it is original with 
Mr. Bennett, and has also been advocated by Professor Knapp in 
his teaching, is far from being new. C. W. Nauck’s explanation in 
his edition (13te Aufl., 1889; 15te Aufl., by Weissenfels, 1899) 
ought to amount to the same thing, but is not clear either in thought 
or expression. In the edition of Horace brought out by Anthon in 
1830 the same explanation is adopted from the edition of Hunter of 
1797. Here, as in many another place, the older students of Horace 
seem to have been wiser than the ἐπίγονοι. Anthon himself backslid 
in his smaller edition. 

But I believe we can and should go farther than Hunter and Mr. 
Bennett have gone and that we should restore the ut after Vergilium. 
I base this opinion not so much on the surprising parataxis as on 
the position of the word precor. Read the two stanzas as Mr. 
Bennett would have us do, and the precor falls heavily with reddas 
and serves, the sentence still, by reason of the parataxis, breaking 
pretty sharply in the middle. But the precor should surely be 
brought into connection with the sic-clause. Insert ut after Vergi- 
lium, read with proper emphasis and, so far as possible, in one 
breath, and precor knits up, as it were, the two strands of the sen- 
tence, and its force is clearly felt to pervade the whole, the et serves 
animae dimidium meae falling in as a sort of graceful and emphatic 
afterthought. 

This restoration, as I am convinced that it is, of Horace’s text 
had been suggested before; in Keller’s Epilegomena zu Horaz Doe- 
derlein is sneered at for advocating the insertion of ut. I can at 
least rejoice, like Odysseus, οὕνεχ᾽ ἑταῖρον ἐνηέα λεύσσω ἐν ἀγῶνι. 


Horace 187 


HORATIANUM.? 


In eo carmine quod inter Horatiana est I. vi. menda haud ita sunt 
pauca. Nam primum quidem nemo umquam nos docebit qualis sit illa 
avis quae versu secundo commemoratur. In eodem aviario iam du- 
dum includi oportebat Maeonii carminis ales atque ξουθὸς 1116 ἱππαλεκ- 
τρυών. Vix fieri potest quin manum Horatii feliciter restituerit 
J. Jones (v. Muellerum in loc.) qui aemulo pro alite rescribendum 
coniecit. Neque recte faciunt hodierni editores, dum spreto Mureti 
et Bentleii acumine perversum illud quam rem cumque retinent. 
Apertissimum debebat esse Horatium scripsisse qua. rem cumque 
ferox navibus aut equis, i. e. quocumque modo, sive navibus sive 
equis. Neque vero ullo modo Horatio vindicari possunt inepti 
hoc quidem certe loco versus qui sunt 13-16. Porro equidem vix 
dubito quin cum Bentleio versu 18 strictis scribendum sit, etiam si 
eius coniecturae auctor perperam verba quae sunt im iuvenes cum 
strictis arte iuncta voluit, cum hyperbati ratio eum docere debuerit 
ea verba cum acrium esse coniungenda, ut intellegerentur virgines 
unguibus, non gladiis, destrictis in iuvenes acriter pugnantes. 

At ista satis nota sunt omnibus omnia, quamvis spreta sint atque ne- 
glecta; nunc ad novum, quod sciam, repertum venio. Extrema car- 
minis verba correctoris qui sibi videbatur—nisi forte commentator 
is erat—manum experta conicio. Nam attende, quaeso, quid tradi- 
tum sit: vacui sive quid urimur, non praeter solitum leves, i. e. sive 
vaculi sumus sive quid urimur, non praeter solitum leves. Intenta τῶν 
τῆς ψυχῆς ὀμμάτων acie haec legenti nonne claudicat tibi sententia 
in illo Jeves? Repone modo graves, continuo recte se habebunt 
omnia. 


DE CARMINE QUOD EST INTER HORATIANA IV, viii.? 


Huius carminis versum 17um, non incendia Karthaginis impiae, 
damnavit Bentleius idque firmissimis fretus argumentis. Cum autem 
idem vir doctissimts hoc loco agnoscat “versum Monachalis plane 
genii et coloris’, in versu insequente, eius qui domita nomen ab 
Africa, non animadvertit—quod mireris—molestissimum illud eius 
quod in C. 3. 11. 18 “male oderat’”. Videtur Bentleius totus in versu 
17 damnando occupatus proximi versus peccatum neglexisse. Dam- 
nato versu 18 deleas oportet verba quae sunt non celeres fugae (15) 


1[From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIX (1905), p. 37.] 
3 [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIX (1905), pp. 306-309. ] 


188 Latin Authors 


... lucratus rediit (19), id quod ἴδοις Lachmannus. At etiam 
nunc numerus versuum carmine comprehensorum legem violat Mei- 
nekianam, neque aeque verisimile ac facile factu est ut eiectis praeterea 
duobus versibus desideratum carminis ambitum assequaris. Quae 
cum ita sint, haud ita levis subire debet suspicio totum hoc carmen 
subditicium esse, quam suspicionem ad confirmandam atque corro- 
borandam aliquid certe adferunt alia quaedam falsitatis indicia quae 
statim proferam. Ac primum quidem locutiones aliquas leviter 
praestringam. Omittendum fortasse erat tamquam levius atque mi- 
noris momenti satis ineptum illud commodus quod in versu primo 
occurrit, neque nimis urguenda verba pretium dicere muneri (var. 
lect. muneris) in versu 12, quae tamen equidem confitear satis absurde 
videri dicta; at nonne admirationem tibi movent in eis quae locum 
summo iure suspectum medium amplectuntur versus 20-22? An 
diligentis et intelligentis est scriptoris, postquam de incisis mar- 
moribus scripserit per quae spiritus et vita redeat bonis ducibus 
(14 sq.), statim adicere neque, si chartae sileant quod bene feceris, 
mercedem tuleris? Atque verba per quae . . . ducibus et ipsa inep- 
tam quandam magniloquentiam mirifice redolent. Aeque tumidum 
et ridiculum est illud in finis in versu 31. Neque haec Horatium sapi- 
unt neque mihi quidem in versu 31 clarum Tyndaridae sidus. Nonne 
hic imitationem sentis notissimi illius fratres Helenae lucida sidera C. 
I. 3.2? Atque hic erant fortasse componendi ceteri loci ubi huius 
carminis scriptor alios Horati versus asclepiadeos minores imi- 
tando videtur expressisse. Comparanda igitur sunt haec: praemia 
fortium vsu 3 cum praemia frontium C. 1. 1. 29, hic saxo liquidis 
slle coloribus vsu 7 cum perfusus liquidis urguet odoribus C. 1. 5. 2, 
ereptum Stygus fluctibus Aeacum vsu 25 cum luctantem Icariis 
fluctibus Africum C. τ΄ I. 15, quassas eripiunt aequoribus rates 
vsu 32 cum mox reficit rates quassas C. 1.1.17, ornatus viridi tempora 
pampino vsu 29 cum cingentem viridi tempora pampino C. 3. 25. 20. 
Multo minus aperta est imitatio in versibus 2 (cf. C. 3. 30. 1), 8 
(cf. C. 1. 3. 16), 11 (cf. C. 3. 16. 15), 24 ΚΡ 
30. 15), ubi ea intra fines unius aut summum duorum vo- 
cabulorum subsistit. Non negandum est sane in genuinis Horatii 
asclepiadeis hic illic occurrere quae declarent ut ceteros poetas ita 
Horatium aliquando sui ipsius imitatorem fuisse, sed calathum flos- 
culorum huius quidem carminis scriptor nobis offert. Porro non 
debet abesse suspicio quin huius carminis auctor Horatianum suis 


Horace 189 


versibus inducere colorem studuerit infertis locutionibus quales 
sunt hic... ille vsu 6 (cf. C. 1. τ. 7 et 9) et munc .. . nunc vsu 
8 (cf. C. 1. 1. 21 sq.). Sed maioris est momenti consonantiarum 
ratio his in versiculis obvia. Nam, cum in aliis ex eis Horatiana sit 
consonantia, in aliis tamen plane discrepat ab eius usu. Horatiana 
ratio apparet in his: Censorine, meIS aera sodalIBVS vsu 2 et hic 
saxo liquidIS ille colorIBVS vsu 7 (cf. C. 1. 1. I, 1. 1. 8, 
I. I. 12, I. 1. 27 (quater in uno carmine), I. 5. 2, 4. I. 10, 4. I. 32, 4. 5. 
15), non incisa notlS marmora publicIS vsu 13 (cf. inter alia ex- 
empla C. I. 1. 10), etus qui domitA nomen ab AfricA vsu 18 (cf. 
inter alia C. 3. 24. 58); consonantiarum vero quales sunt gaudes 
carminIBVS: carmina possumVS vsu 11 et vatum divitIBVS con- 
secrat insullS vsu 27 frustra apud Horatium exempla quaesieris, qui 
nomen in -IBVS desinens semper in posteriore sede collocat (cf. 
praeter exempla supra citata C. 1. 14. 14. mil pictis timidVS navita 
puppIBVS). 

Consonantia qualem habemus in Maecenas atavIS_ edite 
regiBVS e pentametro elegiaco in asclepiadeum translata videtur. 
Catullus, si non instituit hanc consonantiam, at certe adhibuit in car- 
minibus 65 et 66: vide sis 65. 2, 66. 4, 66. 58, 66. 60, 66. 80, 66. 92. 
Tibulliana exempla sunt haec: 1. 1. 38, I. 2. 54, 1. 2. 84, I. 7. 32, 
ΠΥ ats δ, I, 8.24, 1.9, 4, 2.1. 18, 2. 1. 36, 2: 1. 60, 2. 3. 40, 
2. 5. 16, 2. 5. 40, 2. 5. 80, 3. 4. 56, 3. 6. 8. Propertius in primo libro 
hance consonantiam paene ad nauseam usque adhibuit: exempla sunt 
ee Wik, She Fis 8.2, 45:5. 2. 18, 1. 3. 2, 1. 3. 8, 16.3. 22, 1. 3. 325 
Bea aos, 3:30, 3. 5.24, B. 6; 30; 3,7. 4, 1. 8. 20, 1,11. 2, 1. 11. 4, 
I. 11. 8, I. 13. 16, 1. 14. 6, I. 14. 12, τι 14. 22, I. 15. 36, I. 15. 40, 1. 16, 
4, 1. 16, 6, 1. 16. 10, 1. 16, 18, 1. 16. 26, I. 16. 42, 1. 16. 44, 1. 16. 46, τ. 
eed, 1. δά, 2. 20. 36, 1. 20.38, I..20. 42, 1. 21: 2, 1. 22. 4; 
I. 22. 10. In secundo libro nullum exemplum, in tertio autem 
et quarto haec: 3. 5. 32, 3. 8. 14, 3. 8. 38, 3. 20. 20, 3. 27. 18, 3. 32. 64, 
3. 32. 68, 3. 32. 70, 4. 2. 28. Cuiusvis est decrescentem apud Proper- 
tium exemplorum frequentiam interpretari quid significet et unde 
evenerit. Inversae consonantiae primum offendimus exemplum 
Propert. 5. 2. 42, hortorum in manIBVS dona probata meIS. Sed 
ne in eos quidem pentametros qui in bisyllabum vocabulum desinere 
solent nisi lentissimo gradu inversa ea consonantia sese insinuavit; 
nam in Heroidibus Ovidianis unum hoc inveni exemplum: Her. 

1 Editionem sequor Muellerianam, 


190 Latin Authors 


10. 100 impia funerIBVS, Cecropi terra, tuIS.1. Apud Martialem 
autem inter Troem et Tyrium nullum discrimen; nam usque ad finem 
noni Epigrammaton libri? haec habemus exempla consonantiae rectae 
Spect. 18. 4, Epigr. 2. 43.8 (versus in tribus desinens), 2. 46. 4, 2.90. 
6, 4. 57. 10, 5. 64. 4, 5. 81. 2, 9. 47. 2, 9. 59. 20; consonantiae inversae 
Epigr. 1. 13. 2, 2. 62. 2, 4. 10. 6, 6. 43. 4, 7. 65. 2 (conterit una tribus, 
Gargaliane, foris), 8. 3. 14, 9. 41. 8, 9. 48. 4, 9. 65. 4. 

Haud prorsus dissimile est quod in asclepiadeo evenit; nam, cum 
apud Horatium in versibus indubitatis inversae consonantiae ex- 
emplum appareat nullum, in fabulis tamen Senecae adscriptis ex- 
empla habemus haec: Herc. F. 540, Troad. 372, Phaedr. 767. Rectae 
consonantiae exempla Senecana sunt haec: Here. F. 524, 553, 
Med. 58, 59, 64, 106, Phaedr. 812, Thyest. 143, 157, Here. Oet. 
147, 161. Nunc ad nostrum poemation paulisper redeamus. 

Hoc igitur in carmine usque ad nauseam insequens versus eodem 
sono atque praecedens clauditur: cf. vss. I et 2 (-us), 3-5 (-um), 
8 et o(-um), 13 et 14 (-is), 15-17 (-ae), 25 et 26 (-um). Istud 
quidem Horatianum esse vix fieri potest ut equidem credam. 

Habes, lector, quibus paene coactus totum hoc carmen ab Horatio 
alienum esse censeo. At dixerit quispiam: ‘“Quorsum haec omnia? 
Nonne κύνα Seipas δεδαρμένην et quidem πάλαι dedappeynv? An tu 
nescis hoc carmen et Lehrsium et post eum Gowium in Corpore 
Postgatiano ab Horatio abiudicasse?”’ Minime inscio obici ista 
fingo; sed haud instrenui exorti sunt huius poematii inter hodiernos 
viros doctos vindices. Vahlenus in prolegomenis ad alteram suam 
Ennianae poesis reliquiarum editionem bis carmen nostrum tam- 
quam ne minima quidem suspicione laborans laudat; et Bellingius, 
cuius ab ovilibus tener nuper agnus Kiesslingii aram imbuit—de 
libello loquor Studien iiber die Liederbiicher des Horatius inscripto— 
totam appendiculam (pp. 160-167) huius carminis defensioni adtri- 
buit. Sed huius argumenta incorrupto praeditis iudicio lectoribus 
satis secure possum committere. Neque multo melius sese habent 
quae in postumae Muelleri editionis adnotationibus sunt. Illi viro 
hoc poema vel pulcherrimum videbatur atque Horatio maxima qui- 
dem ex parte dignum. Contrariam opinionem satis iam, nisi fallor, 
defendere sum conatus. 

*Pentameter in bisyllabum vocabulum desinens et ipse antiquiorem consonantiam 


admittere potest, si ¢ridus vocabulo terminatur, velut Ov. Her. 3.88 et 10.118. 
* Cuncta apud Martialem obvia exempla recensere vix opus. 


Horace 19! 


AD HORATII SERMONEM JI, 1. 15 SQQ.* 
si quis deus “En ego” dicat ' 

“jam faciam quod voltis: eris tu, qui modo miles, 
mercator ; tu, consultus modo, rusticus: hinc vos, 
vos hinc mutatis discedite partibus. Eia, 
quid statis?” nolint; atqui licet esse beatis — 
quid causae est merito quin illis luppiter ambas 
iratus buccas inflet neque se fore posthac 
tam facilem dicat , votis ut praebeat aurem? 

His in versibus suspicionem mihi movet praecipue nimis abruptum 
illud atqui licet esse beatis, quae verba neque cum superioribus neque 
cum insequentibus satis arte cohaerent. Ne te morer, lector, audi—ut 
Horatii ipsius scrinia compilem—quo rem deducam: quod modo atqui 
fuit adiecta s littera huc illuc duas in partes divisum discedat, ut 
mutata distinguendi ratione sic constitutus locus evadat: 

nolint; at , quis (=quibus) licet esse beatis , 
quid causae est merito quin illis Iuppiter ambas cet. 
Conferendum est carminis initium, ubi similem in modum sibi in- 
vicem respondent qui et ille pronomina. 


DE HORATII SERMONE I, 1.? 


Huius carminis in principio quaerit Horatius undenam fiat ut sua 
cuique sors prae aliena sordeat; in fine inde id fieri respondet, quia 
omnes homines avari sint. Ea certe est summa responsionis. Sed 
haud ita bene Horatius argumentatur. Nam postquam quaesti- 
onem proposuit hunc in modum: Qui fit, Maecenas, ut nemo quam 
sibi sortem seu ratio dederit seu fors obiecerit illa contentus vivat, 
laudet diversa sequentis?, non statim respondere pergit, sed quod, 
dum Maecenatem interrogat, assumebat omnes ipsorum suam quem- 
que sortem contemnere ac vituperare, alienam laudibus extollere, id 
exemplis probare conatur. Qua re, ut putat, conclusa atque confecta 
ioculariter suam exponit opinionem, haud sincere homines 
alienae suam quemque condicionem ac_ studium  postha- 
bere. Tum amoto, ut ait, ludo et graviore assumpta persona rei 
propositae acrius instare videtur. Sed videtur tantum; nam ita im- 
mutatam resumit quaestionem, ut, cum antea interrogarit, cur suam 


1[From Mnemosyne, Vol. XXX (1902), p. 347.] 
*[From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXVII (1903), pp. 233-235. 


192 Latin Authors 


quisque sortem vituperaret, laudaret diversa sequentis, nunc varia 
variis rebus studentium hominum genera reprehendat, non quod illud 
faciant, sed quia, cum hac mente laborem sese ferre, senes ut in 
otia tuta recedant, aiant, tamen finem quaerendi facere eos velle 
negat. Quam contra falsam cupidinem multos per versus quam qui 
maxime strenue pugnat, dum auream illam mediocritatem cum alibi 
tum in fine praecipue argumentationis collaudat. Denique ad propo- 
sitam ab initio quaestionem redire videtur; nam ‘Illuc’ ait ‘unde 
abii redeo’. Hic, etsi a re proposita toto fere sermone aliquantum 
mentem obliquavit poeta, tamen paene iustum tandem responsum ex- 
spectare poteramus. Sed falsos nos habet corrupta codicum scrip- 
tura, quam emendare nunc experiar. Ac primo confitebor mihi 
eam scripturam quae in vetustissimo codicum Blandiniorum fuisse 
dicitur, scilicet qui nemo ut avarus, a vero videri propius abesse. 
Hoc autem fundamento nixus pristinam versuum 108 546. scripturam 
sic revocare conabor ut eos hunc in modum rescribam: 


Illuc unde abii redeo. Quia nemo, ut avarus, 
se probat ac potius laudat diversa sequentis 
quodque aliena capella gerat distentius uber 
tabescit neque se maiori pauperiorum 

turbae comparat, hunc atque hunc superare laborat— 
sic festinanti semper locupletior obstat—, 

ut, cum carceribus missos rapit ungula currus, 
instat equis auriga suos vincentibus, illum 
praeteritum temnens extremos inter euntem; 
inde fit ut raro qui se vixisse beatum 

dicat et exacto contentus tempore vita 

cedat uti conviva satur reperire queamus. 


Sic constituto famoso hoc loco statim legenti apparebit Quia et inde 
particulas inter sese respondere. Quod vero in versibus 109-111 qui 
fuerant indicativi in modum coniunctivum migrarunt, eius rei fons 
et origo fuit Quia particula in qui detorta, quae detorsio inde pro- 
fluxit quod librarius aliquis initium carminis est alieno tempore 
recordatus. Ad versum autem 113” quod attinet, rectissime is se 
habet, modo tanquam διὰ μέσου, ut aiunt Graeculi, eum interiectum 
accipiamus, quasi fuerit sic(—=adeo) semper obstat <ei> festinanti 
(=dum festinat) locupletior <alter>. Atque ne nunc quidem 
prorsus iustum ad interrogationem suam responsum reddit Horatius, 


Horace 193 


qui sic respondeat quasi ab initio quaesierit, qui fiat ut vix quisquam 
sua ipsius sorte contentus neque alienam cupiens vita discedat. At 
hoe fortasse est cavillari. 

Restat ut alios quosdam locos huius sermonis examinem. Et pri- 
mum quidem quartus versus, nisi fallor, duobus mendis laborat. 
Illud enim ‘O fortunati mercatores!’ compellantis est, cum excla- 
mantis esse oporteret: ergo reponendum erat—id quod mihi in- 
dicavit e collegis meis quidam, vir linguae latinae quam peritis- 
simus—‘O fortunatos mercatores!’. Atque illud aunis minime verum 
esse potest; nam grandem natu fictum illum ab Horatio militem non 
esse, id a iam particula quae in insequenti versu est elucet; ea enim 
vocula significat eum mature labore confectum esse. Reponendum 
igitur cum Bouhierio armis. Ad versum 8" quod attinet, cum Bent- 
leio facio aut particulam geminatam et postulante et subtili argu- 
mento defendente. In versu autem 12° recta quae dicitur oratio erat 
fortasse indicanda hunc in modum: ‘solos felices viventis’ clamat 
‘in urbe!’. De versus 19’ emendatione iam in Mnemosyne’ 30 (n. s.), 
347, sententiam meam exposui. Versus 23-27 sic distinctos velim: 
Praeterea, ne sic ut qui iocularia ridens | percurram—quamquam 
ridentem dicere verum | quid vetat? ut pueris olim dant crustula 
blandi | doctores, elementa velint ut discere prima; | sed tamen— 
amoto quaeramus seria ludo, quasi verba quae sunt quamquam 
.. . Sed tamen ἐκ δευτέρας φροντίδος poeta adicerit. De versus 29' 
emendandi ratione cum Luciano Muellero sentio. Denique de versu 
40° aperte necesse confiteamur ne particulam prorsus abundare. 
Aut Horatium fefellit negationis ratio aut—quod magis ad pro- 
bandum inclino—pro dum ne erat dummodo rescribendum. Sed, 
ne ipse in eandem suspicionem quam evitare Horatius studuit incur- 
ram, verbum non amplius addam. 


DE HORATII SATIRA PRIMA? 


Bporoiow οὐδέν ἐστ᾽ ἀπώμοτον. ψεύδει yap ἣ ἐπίνοια τὴν γνώμην. 
Putaram omnino me Horatii satiram primam iam absolvisse, sed 
ecce iterum eo recurro. Neque tamen quidquam eorum quae eo de 
carmine vel potius sermone hoc in diario nuper scripsi® mutatum aut 


1[See above, Ὁ. 191. ] 
2 [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIX (1905), pp. 35-36-] 
5 [See last article. ] 


194 Latin Authors 


damnatum velim praeter unum alterumve ex minutioribus; de ad- 
dendo potius quam de subtrahendo nunc agitur. Ac primum quidem 
in versu 27 addendam esse censeo μέ particulam, qua inserta hunc in 
modum decurrent versus 23-27: 

Praeterea, ne sic ut qui iocularia ridens 

percurram—quamquam ridentem dicere verum 

quid vetat, ut pueris olim dant crustula blandi 

doctores, elementa velint ut discere prima ?— 

sed tamen, amoto <ut> quaeramus seria ludo, 

Sic enim rescripto loco iterant—immutata modo aliquantillum 
ratione loquendi—illud ne sic . . . percurram verba quae sunt amoto 
... ludo. Si quis alius sic corrigere sit conatus, nescio; quam vero 
difficile sit novi quidquam Horatio emendando excogitare experientia 
doctus bene intellego. Huius ipsius satirae in versu 19 Bowyer 
quidam Anglus, id quod a Wolfio (v. eius Kleine Schriften ed. Bern- 
hardy p. 1004) didici, eandem in coniecturam inciderat quam ego 
longo post tempore feci. Neque lugeo equidem gloriolam mihi prae- 
reptam; gaudeo magis plus unius testimonio veritatem stabiliri—_ 
Sed eiusmodi de reculis ne longior sim, ad versum 71 animum ad- 
vertamus, quippe qui versus levi correctione indigere videatur. An 
non rectius se habeat oratio s littera geminata hunc in modum: 


congestis undique saccis 
indormis inhians, <s>et tamquam parcere sacris? 

Atque illa fortasse adicienda est observatiuncula, non indormis 
sed inhians intentiore et mente et voce efferendum esse, quippe quod 
in figurata dictione cum signo rem significatam coniungat. Pro 
indormis autem melius Horatius scripsisset, sensum certe si spectes, 
invigilas, quod ideo videtur respuisse quia versu 76 vigilare ponebat 
(cf. S. 2. 3. 108-113), nisi forte indormis ita accipiendum est ut idem 
valeat quod obtorpescis. 

Versus 80-91 multo melius mea quidem opinione se habebunt, 
si expulso versu 87 quippe sententiam quasi diluente conturbatum, 
ut videtur, ordinem sic redintegraris: 

84 Non uxor salvum te volt, non filius; omnes 
85 vicini oderunt, noti, pueri atque puellae. 

86 Miraris, cum tu argento post omnia ponas; 

88 an, si cognatos, nullo natura labore 

89 quos tibi dat, retinere velis servareque amicos, 


81 
82 
83 


Horace 195 


infelix operam perdas, ut si quis asellum 

in Campo doceat parentem currere frenis? 
At, si condoluit temptatum frigore corpus 
aut alius casus lecto te adfixit, habes qui 
adsideat, fomenta paret, medicum roget ut te 
suscitet ac natis reddat carisque propinquis. 


—Finem iam faciam, postquam tria addidero: primum in versu 
12 melius nunc mihi videri se habere obliquam quam rectam oratio- 
nem, ut recta oratione utatur prius tantum hominum par, quod versi- 
bus 4-8 describitur ; deinde in versu 35 Halbertsmam eumque solum, 
quod sciam, verum vidisse, qui in postumis suis Adversariis Criti- 
cis (Leidae 1896, p. 153) haud incauta ac non ignara futuri re- 
scriptum vult; tum versum 113 melius fortasse se habiturum fuisse, 
si non ubi nunc est sed post versum 116 collocatus esset. 


6 


VARIOUS AUTHORS. 
AD CAESARIS COMM. DE BELLO GALLICO INITIUM.? 


Relegenti mihi saepe numero initium Caesaris de bello gallico 
commentariorum semper minus recte se habere videtur enuntia- 
tionum ordinatio. Neque fieri potest ut credam tanto praedito 
acumine scriptori tam confusam Galliae atque eius incolarum finium- 
que descriptionem excidere potuisse. Sed e doctorum in hunc locum 
coniecturis quae apud Meuselium Cont. Caes. in unum collectae 
prostant nulla mihi arridet, quae quidem ordinationem verborum 
spectet. Quae cum ita sint, hanc tamquam veram atque ab ipsius 
scriptoris calamo profectam sententiarum verborumque consecu- 
tionem proponere ausim: 

Gallia est omnis divisa in partis tris quarum unam incolunt Bel- 
gae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli 
appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, moribus inter se differunt. 
Eorum una pars quam Gallos obtinere dictum est initium capit 
a flumine Rhodano; continetur Garumna flumine, Oceano, finibus 
Belgarum; attingit etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum; 
vergit ad septentriones: Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur; 
pertinent ad inferiorem partem fluminis Rheni; spectant inter sep- 
tentriones (septentrionem Codd.) et orientem solem: Aquitania a 
Garumna flumine ad Pyrenaeos montis et eam partem Oceani quae 
est ad Hispaniam pertinet; spectat inter occasum solis et septen- 
triones. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona 
et Sequana dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae prop- 


terea quod .... continenter bellum gerunt. Qua de causa Hel- 
vetii quoque . . . bellum gerunt. Apud Helvetios longe nobilis- 
simus cet. 


Confusam loci ordinationem inde ortam esse coniecerim quod in 
archetypo casu inversum sit folium quod rectum verba quae sunt 
Eorum una pars... . inter occasum solis et septentriones, versum 
autem verba quae sunt Gallos ab Aquitanis .... in eorum finibus 
bellum gerunt continebat. 


} [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXVII (1903), p. 52.] 


Cicero 197 
CRITICAL NOTES ON CICERO DE ORATORE 1. 


I, I si infinitus forensium rerum labor et ambitionis occupatio 
decursu honorum, etiam aetatis flexu constitisset .. . 


Those that have felt a difficulty in the bare etiam here seem to me 
to be in the right. The turn of phrase employed by Q. Cicero de 
petit. 2, 9 cum semper natura, tum etiam aetate iam quietum, may 
help us to the restoration of the passage in the de orat. to: etiam 
<iam> flexu constitisset. 

3, 11 vere mihi hoc videor esse dicturus: ex omnibus eis qui in 
harum artium liberalissimis studiis sint doctrinisque versati mini- 
mam copiam poetarum egregiorum exstitisse; atque in hoc ipso 
numero, in quo perraro exoritur aliquis excellens, si diligenter et ex 
nostrorum et ex Graecorum copia comparare voles, multo tamen 
pauciores oratores quam poetae boni reperientur. 


Cicero is dealing with the question: Why have there been more dis- 
tinguished men in every other field than in oratory? In order to the 
proper treatment of this question he first shews that there have been 
more distinguished men in every other field. In the artes maximae, 
represented by the general and the statesman, the case is beyond 
cavil (2, 7-8). But the comparison of the orator with the general 
ot with the statesman may be objected to as unfair, on the ground 
that the orator should be classed rather with scientists and men of 
letters. The comparison is therefore restricted to the latter sorts 
(2,8). It is hard to count the eminent philosophers (2,9). The 
mathematicians of renown are not few (3, 10) : the same holds good 
of those that have devoted themselves to musica and of the gram- 
matici (3, 10). Then follows the sentence quoted above. This con- 
tains the climax and the conclusion of the comparison. The gist 
of it is this: Among those that deal with reconditae artes and 
litterae (cf. 2, 8) the poets constitute the class that has the smallest 
number of distinguished representatives: and there are fewer good 
orators than good poets. But can it be for a moment supposed that 
Cicero would conclude so clear and simple an argument as this in the 
way which our MSS. tell us he has? Let us look at the second 
half of the sentence quoted, beginning with atque in. ‘And in this 
very number, in which very rarely does anyone rise to eminence, 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XI (1897), pp. 22-26. ] 


198 Latin Authors 


if you will make a careful comparison, including both Greeks and 
Romans, you will yet find much fewer good orators than good poets.” 
The words in hoc ipso numero (with the appended relative clause, 
of which more anon) are obviously=in hac minima copia poetarum 
egregiorum, and the words multo—reperientur therefore include 
the orators in the special class with which they are contrasted and 
compared. Dr. Sorof represents those that would accept the text 
as it stands and assumes an anacoluthon. The words in hoc ipso 
numero are=in poetarum ipsorum numero (a sense which a careful 
reading of the passage ought to show that they cannot bear), and 
multo—reperientur is “ein durch Zwischensatz veranlasstes Ana- 
koluth, statt: multo tamen plures egregii reperientur, quam sunt 
oratores boni, welches um so erklarlicher ist, als dem Cic. fort- 
wahrend die paucitas vratorum egregiorum vorschwebt.” But even 
if we disregard the misinterpretation of in hoc ipso numero, can 
we suppose that Cicero would draw his conclusions so carelessly ? 
The conjecture of Stangl (see Sorof’s Kritischer Anhang) that the 
words et oratorum are to be inserted between poetarum and egregi- 
orum in the former half of the sentence merely appears to bring 
relief. The logical flaw of including one of the two classes com- 
pared in the other is still present, though placed one step farther 
back. (See Sorof’s Krit. Anhang.) The same remark applies to 
O. Hense’s et oratorum for egregiorum (see Piderit-Harnecker, 
Krit. Anhang)—the conjecture to which Stangl’s suggestion is due. 
We come now to a consideration of the possibility and probability 
of emendation in the latter part of the sentence, beginning with the 
words atque in. Kayser in the Tauchnitz text-edition brackets im 
before hoc ipso numero, as well as the words quam poetae. Hoc 
ipso numero will then depend upon the comparative pauciores, and 
we shall construe: ‘And than this very number (i.e. the minima 
copia poetarum egregiorum), in. which very rarely does any one 
rise to eminence, if you will make a careful comparison &c., you 
will yet find much fewer good orators.’ This treatment of the text, 
however, assumes for the passage as originally written a form that 
would not of itself have been likely to have produced the present 
form. The difficulty lies in explaining the in before hoc ipso 
numero. How did this fons et origo malorum come into the text? — 
Let us glance at a clause that has thus far passed unchallenged 


Cicero 199 


(in its entirety: Rubner [see Piderit-Harnecker, Krit. Anhang] has 
proposed the improbable cum—exoriatur), in quo perraro exoritur 
aliquis excellens. If hoc ipso numero is, as it obviously is, a mere 
resumption of minimam copiam poetarum egregiorum, then in 
quo—excellens is an utterly needless—not to say awkward and 
absurd—addition. It is an addition such as would be made to an 
obscure or ambiguous antecedent—and such too as might be made in 
the margin. Hoc ipso numero is too clear to need such an addition; 
not so in hoc ipso numero: therefore in quo—excellens presupposes 
in hoc ipso numero, and it is not enough to bracket in and quam 
poetae. Thus it appears probable that in quo—excellens is a gloss, 
but a gloss that presupposes in before hoc ipso numero, Let us 
glance now for a moment at atque. It has been proposed to change 
this atque into the adversative atqui. (By Piderit, who further- 
more understood in hoc ipso numero to refer to the preceding ex 
omnibus, qui in harum — sc. mediocrium—artium studiis libera- 
lissimis sunt doctrinisque versati. But, as Adler said, it is harsh 
not to refer in hoc numero to the immediately preceding minimam 
copiam poetarum egregiorum.) To this Sorof (Krit. Anhang) 
objects that the necessity of such change is obviated by the follow- 
ing tamen (after multo). However, this objection loses its force 
from the fact that the sentence is too fully under weigh before 
we are put right by the adversative. Then too we think of the 
familiar collocation at tamen. An adversative at the head of this 
sentence—an at or an atqui—is just what we should expect; but 
this of itself gives us no help in our critical problem—in our trouble 
over in hoc—numero. A. Fleckeisen in his Kritische Miscellen 
(Dresden, 1864, Program des Vitzthumschen Gymnasiums,—referred 
to by Dr. Sorof) deals (pp. 23-28) with a number of passages in 
which atque has ousted atqui. The passages which he discusses 
have in common the peculiarity that the atque that requires change 
to atqui is followec by a word beginning vith 7. Fleckeisen believes 
that this is not mere chance but that we are to see in this cor- 
ruption a trace of the archaic spelling ei for i. Thus e.g. ATQVEIILLE 
or ATQVEILLE would readily pass, under the hand of a scribe, into 
atque ille. But the admission of the truth or plausibility of this 
theory brings us no further forward in the present case, unless we 
suppose that ATQVEIHOC might have been misread as ATQVEIHOC 


200 Latin Authors 


(atque in hoc). (For the spellings atquei and quein in the MSS. of 
Cicero see Georges, Lexicon der Lat. Wortformen s.vv. atqui and 
quin.) A more probable assumption than this we can base on the 
occurrence in two passages in Cicero (pro domo 12 atquin utrumque 
fuisse perspicuum est and Philip. 10, 17 atquin huius animum erga 
M. Brutum studiumque vidistis) of the form atquin. The fact that 
in the latter of these two passages atquin is followed by a form 
of hic taken in combination with Fleckeisen’s suggestion about the 
archaic spelling, gives colour to the conjecture that in our passage 
of the de oratore atque in should be written as one word—atquein. 
We shall then read: 


atquein hoc ipso numero [in quo perraro exoritur aliquis ex- 
cellens], si diligenter et ex nostrorum et ex Graecorum copia com- 
parare voles, multo tamen pauciores oratores [quam poetae] boni 
reperientis %s..-% 


Thus Kayser’s bracketing of quam poetae is to be accepted, in is 
retained, and in—excellens is rejected, the difficulty having arisen 
entirely from a wrong division of ATQVEIN. 


3, 12. Should we read here: dicendi autem omnis ratio in 
medio posita <ita> communi cet., ut—excellat ? 


4, 13. The traditional text with four aut’s is (notwithstanding 
Professor Wilkins’s explanation) very harsh. Reading along natur- 
ally we understand: aut pluris ceteris (artibus) inservire aut maiore 
delectatione (homines eis inservire) aut spe uberiore (eis inservire) 
aut praemiis ad perdiscendum amplioribus—Here we expect to 
understand eis inservire (—commotus—or the like—eis inservire} 
but are confronted with commoveri instead. Wex’s ac for the last 
aut is helpful and not improbably—or impossibly—right, unless 
Cicero wrote very carelessly here; but it does not help us out of all 
the difficulty: we have still one aut too many. Should we not read 
et after inservire? If we do not, can we not fairly say that we are 
justified in expecting from Cicero’s pen: aut spe uberiore ac praemiis 
ad perdiscendum amplioribus commotos? 


7, 26. hi primo die de temporibus deque universa republica, 
quam ob causam venerant, multum inter se usque ad extremum 
tempus diei conlocuti sunt, quo quidem sermone multa divinitus 


Cicero 201 


a tribus ille consularibus Cotta deplorata et commemorata narrabat, 
ut nihil incidisset postea civitati mali, quod non impendere illi tanto 
ante vidissent. . . 


The ut-clause here seems to lack a distinct indication of its exact 
point of contact with the preceding clause. Divinitus is an emphatic 
word; to it, therefore, one naturally seeks to link the ut-clause. 
Even then, however, we miss a particle anticipatory of ut—what 
Fischer would call its ‘syndetic antecedent’. This may, I think, be 
readily supplied before divinitus. Read multa <ita> divinitus &c. 
It is obvious that ita could be easily lost after -lta. 


10, 42. agerent enim tecum lege primum Pythagorei omnes atque 
Democritii, ceterique sua in iure physici vindicarent, . . . .; urgerent 
praeterea philosophorum greges iam ab illo fonte et capite Socrate 
nihil te de bonis rebus in vita, nihil de malis, nihil de animi per- 
motionibus, nihil de hominum moribus, nihil de ratione vitae didicisse, 
nihil omnino quaesisse, nihil scire convincerent; cet. 


The last word in the quotation does not stand in close connection 
with anything that precedes. It is not linked to urgerent by any 
copulative and stands at the very end of its clause. We should 
certainly expect here not a finite form but a participle. Should we 
not read convincentes ? 


13, 55. quibus de rebus Aristotelem et Theophrastum scripsisse 
fateor; sed vide ne hoc, Scaevola, totum sit a me: nam ego, quae 
sunt oratori cum illis communia, non mutuor ab illis; ipsi (Kayser, 
the MSS. isti) quae de his rebus disputant, oratorum esse conce- 
dunt, itaque ceteros libros artis suae nomine, hos rhetoricos et in- 
scribunt et appellant. 


The last part of the sentence can hardly mean that Aristotle and 
Theophrastus give their other books a general title belonging to— 
characteristic of—‘their art’ (suae artis), while giving to their 
rhetorical works the general fyropexéd. The special subjects men- 
tioned in the next sentence help to show that Cicero meant to say 
that while they gave their works on other subjects titles indicative 
of the special departments or sciences (artes) of which the works 
severally treated, they gave their rhetorical treatises the general 
title ῥητορικά (libri oratorii). But this is not what Cicero’s sen- 


202 Latin Authors 


tence in the traditional form, makes him say. We must restore a lost 
word. Read: itaque ceteros libros artis suae << quemque > nomine, 
hos rhetoricos &c. 


13, 57 haec ego cum ipsis philosophis tum Athenis disserebam ; 
cogebat enim me M. Marcellus hic noster, qui nunc aedilis curulis 
est et profecto, nisi ludos nunc faceret, huic nostro sermoni interes- 
set, ac iam tum erat adulescentulus his studiis mirifice deditus. 


The sentence seems to me to have received somewhat harsh 
treatment at the hands of several eminent scholars. In the first 
place on the authority of some MSS. the tum before Athenis is 
bracketed (Kayser, Sorof, Wilkins—even third edition, Friedrich; 
retained by Piderit-Harnecker). Surely the fact that in this sentence 
the somewhat garrulous speaker is resuming the audivi enim summos 
homines, cum quaestor ex Macedonia venissem Athenas of τί, 45 
is abundant reason for its presence. In the latter part of the sen- 
tence Cobet bracketed the words nunc aedilis curulis est et, in 
accordance with his favourite theory of glossal interpolation. This 
athetesis has been accepted by Kayser and by Professor Wilkins 
(all three editions). But to this there is a—mea quidem opinione— 
fatal obstacle, namely in the iam tum (Sorof prints tunc) in the 
contrasted member of the sentence. To this the nunc before faceret 
is not a sufficient contrast. If there were a glossal interpolation 
here, the original form of the text would more probably be qui nunc 
profecto, nisi faceret, huic nostro sermoni interesset. Indeed it may 
well be said that that is the form in which this part of the sentence 
would naturally have been cast; for Crassus by his very words hic 
noster implies that Marcellus is present (cf. huic nostro sermoni) 
and then corrects himself by saying that Marcellus would surely be 
present were he not occupied by his duties as aedile. Notwithstand- 
ing this, however, the contrasted clause forces us to accept, not 
merely nunc before aedilis curulis, but also curulis aedilis (for is 
not this term, implying maturity, contrasted with adulescentulus?), 
and est too, which is contrasted with erat. Roughly translated, in 
order to mark its successive corrections and approximations, the 
sentence runs: ‘For I was constrained thereto (i.e. ut cum ipsis 
philosophis dissererem) by M. Marcellus—our friend here—(I 
mean) the one that now is curule aedile and would, of course, were 


Cicero 203 


he not at the present moment engaged in superintending the festival, 
be taking part in this talk of ours, and who already at that time, as 
a mere lad, was surprisingly devoted to these studies’. A lighter 
punctuation before ac iam tum erat, which forms merely the second 
member of the relative sentence begun by qui, seems required. I 
have used a comma instead of the prevailing semicolon. Perhaps 
the omission of all pointing were better still. The thoroughly 
conversational tone of the sentence as thus explained is not its 
least charm. 





By way of appendix to the notes on De Oratore J. I venture 
to add the following suggestions of changes of reading in de 
Oratore II. 


5, 19 tum Catulus ‘ne Graeci quidem,’ inquit, ‘Crasse, qui in 
civitatibus suis clari et magni fuerunt, sicuti tu es nosque omnes 
in nostra republica volumus esse, << nec >horum Graecorum, qui 
se inculcant auribus nostris, similes fuerunt, [nec] in otio (or, [nec] 
tamen in otio)—fugiebant; cet. 


29, 127 hic Crassus ‘quin tu,’ inquit, ‘Antoni, omitte s< is >> isté 
(MSS. omittis ista), quae proposuisti, quae nemo desiderat. 





There is also a passage in the de lege Manilia (4, 10) that is very 
clearly wrong. Read: ut neque vera laus ei detracta oratione mea 
neque falsa adfixa (not adficta!) esse videatur. Of course, the 
error is due to the preceding falsa,—e falso falsum. (Unless, 
indeed, adficta be regarded as the archaic form of adfixa: see Munro 
on Lucr. 3, 4: in either case, however, the contrast with detracta 
makes it reasonably certain that we have to do with a participle 
of adfigere not of adfingere.) 


NOTES ON CICERO, DE NATURA DEORUM, 1. 


1. The broken connection of thought is to be mended thus: de 
qua < tamen > tam variae sunt doctissimorum hominum, etc. 
3-4. The original order may well have been as follows: Sunt 


1[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXXIIL 
(1902), pp. Ixx-lxxi.] 


204 Latin Authors 


enim philosophi et fuerunt qui omnino nullam habere censerent 
rerum humanarum procurationem deos. Quorum si vera sententia 
est, quae potest esse pietas, quae sanctitas, quae religio? Sin 
autem di neque possunt nos iuvare nec volunt nec omnino curant 
nec quid agamus animadvertunt nec est quod ab tis ad hominum 
vitam permanare possit, quid est quod ullos dis immortalibus cultus, 
honores, preces adhibeamus? Haec enim omnia pure atque caste 
tribuenda deorum numini ita sunt, st animadvertuntur ab iis et si est 
aliquid a dis immortalibus hominum generi tributum. In specie autem 
fictae simulationis, sicut reliquae virtutes, item pietas inesse non 
potest, cum qua simul sanctitatem et religionem tolli necesse est; 
atque haud scio an pietate adversus deos sublata fides etiam et societas 
generis humani et una excellentissima virtus, iustitia, tollatur, quibus 
sublatis perturbatio vitae sequitur et magna confusio. In the MSS. 
the words Haec enim omnia... . hominum generi tributum follow 
quae religio? and the words quibus sublatis . . . confusio follow 
tolli necesse est. The transposition of the latter sentence seems first 
to have been suggested by Wyttenbach. 

16. We should, I think, read: Peripateticos, qui honesta< ita > 
commiscerent cum commodis, ut ea....... differrent. 

22. We should probably read: Quid autem erat quod concupis- 
ceret deus mundum signis et lumimbus, tanquam aedilis, ornare? 
Si, ut ipse melius habitaret, etc., omitting the word deus between ut 
and ipse. 

25. For Anaximandri autem opinio est nativos esse deos longis 
intervallis orientes occidentesque, eosque innumerabiles esse mundos 
should probably be read Anaximandri autem opinio est nativos esse 
deos, eosque .. . mundos longis intervallis orientes occidentesque. 

37. In the explicative clause qui aether nominatur should be 
written rather than gq. ae. nominetur. 

88. Cicero seems to have written: Jta fit ut mediterranei mare 
esse non credant < at > que sint tantae animi angustiae, ut, si Seriphi 
natus esseS....... non crederes, etc. For< αἱ >que sint the MSS. 
have quae sunt. 

go. The traditional text is: sed hoc dico, non ab hominibus formae 
figuram venisse ad deos; di enim semper fuerunt, nati numquam 
sunt—si quidem aeterni sunt futuri; at homines nati; ante igitur 
humana forma quam homines ea qua erant forma di immortales: 


Cicero 205 
non ergo illorum humana forma, sed nostra divina dicenda est. 
The conclusion of the syllogism I would correct thus: ante igitur 
quam <qua >homines ea qua erant forma di immortales non ergo 
tllorum humana, sed nostra divina dicenda est. 

101. A particle needs to be inserted thus: Dant enim arcum 
sagittas, hastam clipeum, fuscinam fulmen; <nam>, etsi actiones 
quae sint deorum non vident, nihil agentem tamen deum non queunt 
cogitare. 

107. I conjecture that we should read: Quo modo illae ergo (so 
Reid) et quorum? omitting, as a mere gloss, the traditional imagines 
after quorum. 


AD CICERONIS CATONEM MAIOREM.? 


2, 6. Scribendum est fortasse: Volumus sane, nisi molestum est, 
Cato, tamquam aliquam viam confeceris quam nobis quoque 
ingrediundum sit, istuc quo pervenisti <tu> videre quale sit. 

3, 8. A Cicerone scriptum videtur esse: Nec, Hercule, inquit, 
ego, si Seriphius essem, nec tu, si Atheniensis, clarus umquam fuisses. 
Traditum est: si ego Seriphius essem. Graeca sunt (Plat. rep. 
330 A): ἀπεκρίνατο ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸς Σερίφιος dv ὀνομαστὸς ἐγένετο οὔτ᾽ 
ἐκεῖνος ᾿Αθηναῖος. Verum vidit cum 4115 Reid, sed in editionibus 
adhuc propagatur error. 

5,14. Traditum est: Sua enim vitia insipientes et suam culpam in 
senectutem conferunt, quod non faciebat is cuius modo mentionem 
feci, Ennius: 

sic ut fortis equus spatio qui saepe supremo 
vicit Olympia, nunc senio confectus quiescit. 

Equi fortis et victoris senectuti comparat suam cet. In altero e ver- 
sibus Ennii correxerunt iam quidam quiesco, id quod procul dubio 
ipse dedit; sed equidem plus quam propensus sum ad credendum 
ipsos Ennii versus a Cicerone non esse perscriptos, sed laudatam 
tantum eorum sententiam. Quanto melius sese habeat totus locus 
hunc in modum constitutus: Sua enim vitia . . . is cuius modo men- 
tionem feci poeta, <qui> equi fortis et victoris senectuti comparat 
suam cet. 

8, 26. Scribendum esse censeo: ut et Solonem <in> versibus 
gloriantem videmus. Infra autem equidem non dubito quin 


1[From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXVIII (1904), pp. 123-124. ] 


206 Latin Authors 


e 
legendum sit: quod cum fecisse Socraten in fidibus audierim (pro: 
audirem), vellem equidem etiam illud cet. 

11, 38. Exspectarim: quae si exsequi nequirem, tamen me lec- 
tulus meus oblectaret ea ipsa cogitantem quae iam agere non possem ; 
sed ut queam (pro possim) facit acto vita cet. Non enim inter sese 
opposita sunt non possem et ea quae continuo insecuntur, sed st 
exsequi nequirem et ut possim (pro quo ut queam modo repone- 
bam). Illud ut queam idem valeat atque ut exsequi queam. 

23, 84. Traditum est: commorandi enim’ Natura deversorium 
nobis, non habitandi dedit? Tanquam interpretamentum expellen- 
dum esse censeo illud deversorium, ut rescribantur verba tradita 
hunc in modum: commorandi enim Natura locum nobis, non habi- 
tandi dedit. 


CICERO ORAT. 30.1 


Traditum nobis est Ciceronem Orat. 30 de contionibus illis quibus 
Thucydides opus suum ornavit iudicium fecisse hunc in modum: 

Ipsae illae contiones ita multas habent obscuras abditaSque sen- 
tentias vix ut intellegantur. 

Quae tamen verba, ut quibus vix fieri possit ut integras Cicero 
contiones Thucydideas obscuritatis insimulare voluerit, mihi quidem 
non est dubium quin levi sed perniciosa corruptela laborent. Nam 
mutata, quaeso, verborum collocatione sic locum modo laudatum re- 
scribe: 

Ipsae illae contiones multae ita habent obscuras abditasque sen- 
tentias vix ut intellegantur. 

Num vel syllaba addita causa mea indiget? 


DE LIVII PRAEFATIONE 4. 


Hunc ad modum scripsisse credo Livium: et si in tanta εἰν: 
torum turba mea fama in obscuro sit, nobilitate ac magnitudina 
ecorum meo qui nomini officient me consoler. 

Quibus in verbis e librariorum turba unus tam stolidus fuit ut 
pro meo scripserit me, pro me autem meo, qui error per totam inde 
codicum seriem propagatus est praefationis huius elegantiae haud ita 
modice officiens. 


1 [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXIX (1905), p. 32.] 
*[From Mnemosyne, Vol. XX XIII (1905), p. 397-] 


Seneca Statius 207 


ON THE APOCOLOCYNTOSIS OF SENECA.* 


The verses in c. 15 are surely not in their proper order; but, if we 
make the fourth verse the first, we shall read smoothly thus: 

‘Et iam coeperat fugientes semper tesseras quaerere et nihil 
proficere 

fusuro similis semper semperque petenti; 

nam, quotiens missurus erat resonante fritillo, 
utraque subducto fugiebat tessera fundo, 
cumque recollectos arderet? mittere talos, 
decepere fidem’ cet. 

After the verses we read: ‘apparuit subito C. Caesar’ cet. Surely 
we should expect the words ‘Et iam coeperat’ cet. to be followed 
by ‘<cum > apparuit subito C. Caesar’ cet. 

There are one or two other places in the Apocolocyntosis about 
which I venture to offer suggestions at this time. Thus, in c. 5 the 
sentence that begins “Tum Hercules’ cannot well be right in its 
traditional form. I offer the following attempt at correction. “Tum 
Hercules primo aspectu sane perturbatus est et qui etiam omnia 
monstra non timuerit,® ut vidit novi generis faciem, insolitum in- 
cessum, vocem .... raticam et implicatam, putavit sibi tertium 
decimum laborem venis <se>; se<d> diligentius intuenti visus est 
quasi homo.’ Near the beginning of c. 12 we might well expect to 
find ‘Et erat omnino formosissimum et impensa <cum> cura.’ 
Again, in c. 13 the words ‘primi omnium liberti Polybius . 
Pheronactus, quos Claudius omnes, necubi imparatus esset, prae- 
miserat’ seem to contain a flaw in the adjective imparatus. Can it 
be that an otherwise unattested inapparitus ‘unattended’ lurks here? 


NOTE ON STATIUS’S THEBAID II. 294." 


In Statius’s Thebaid II. 294 sqq., we find these verses (the refer- 
ence is to the necklace of Harmonia) : 
Teque etiam, infelix, perhibent, Iocasta, decorum 
possedisse nefas; vultus hac laude colebas, 
heu quibus, heu placitura toris! post longior ordo. 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIX (1905), p. 303-] 

2 As I would write, with Palmer, instead of the traditional ‘auderet.’ 

5 In ‘ qui. . . timuerit’ the corruption probably lies deeper. 
[From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p. 3-] 


208 Latin Authors 


Evidently laude is wrong; but Baehrens’s luce does not seem ex- 
tremely probable palaeographically, nor does it yield a brilliant sense. 
I would suggest clade. The explanation is simple: hacclade came 
to be written haclade, and was ‘corrected’ into hac laude. We may, 
perhaps, find further support for clade in vv. 301-303. 


OBSERVATIUNCULAE AD LOCOS QUOSDAM POETARUM 
ROMANORUM.? 


Verg. Ecl. 1, 19 imprimi solet sed tamen iste deus qui sit da, 
Tityre, nobis. At de nomine tantum illius dei quaeritur. Ergo 
reponendum esse mihi videtur—id quod aliis quoque visum est— 
quis sit. Aliter res se habet Ecl. 2, 19, ubi de sorte ac condicione 
Corydonis agitur; illic igitur recte se habet qui in verbis quae sunt 
nec qui sim quaeris. 

Verg. Ecl. 1, 62 pererratis participium sic intellegendum esse 
censeo quasi scripserit poeta: permutatis. Nam de finium permu- 
tatione non de pererratione hominum inter se finis commutantium 
hic agi demonstrare videtur tota loci sententia. Nimium metro 
concessisse hoc loco Vergilium adhuc adulescentem equidem cre- 
diderim. 

Verg. Ecl. 2, 2 intellegere non possum qui fiat ut in editionibus, 
dissuadente uno, quod sciam, Brunckio, imprimi soleat minime 
latinum illud hoc quidem significatu nec quid speraret habebat. 
Quin reponimus, quod solum est verum, nec quod speraret habebat. 
Sensus enim aperte est—id quod falsa ista lectione retenta intellexit 
ille vir qui editionem in usum Delphini curavit—: Nec quidquam 
sperare poterat, sive: neque ullum spem habebat (sc. amoris 
fruendi). Vix esse debebat cur relegarem ad Cic. Cat. m. 19, 68 
At senex ne quod speret quidem habet. 

Verg. Ecl. 2, 12 recte fecit Ribbeckius, qui Bentleio praeeunte— 
idem autem suasisse Heinsium auctor mihi est Heynius—me cum 
imprimendum curaverit. Id ut fiat postulat membrorum inter se 
oppositio enuntiationis eius quae versibus 8-13 continetur. (Ac vero 
eodem modo multis iam ante saeculis verba intellexit Nemesianus 
qui (Ecl. 4, 41) sic scripsit: Me sonat omnis | silva, nec aestivis cantu 
concedo cicadis.) Sed illud quoque erat hoc loco animadvertendum, 
Vergilio dum haec scribit obversata esse verba Catulli 64, 353 sq. 


? [From Revue de Philologie, Vol. XXVII (1903), pp. 269-272.] 


Vergil Horace Catullus 209 


velut densas praesternens messor aristas | sole sub ardenti flaventia 
demetit arva. Apud Vergilium vsu. 10 de messoribus agitur, versu 
autem 13 recurrit illud sole sub ardenti, quod isti loco eo est minus 
aptum quod inter densas fagos Corydon incondita sua iactat. Com- 
memorandum etiam illud esse censeo Vergiliana verba hunc in 
modum esse distinguenda: 

at me cum raucis, tua dum vestigia lustro 

sole sub ardenti, resonant arbusta cicadis. 


Primum haec uno versu conclusa scripsisse videtur: at me cum 
raucis resonant arbusta cicadis, deinde reliqua adiecisse. Atque 
etiam Catulli 66" carminis et 39"™* versus et 47°” a Vergilio imita- 
tione expressi testimonio esse debent notissima fuisse Vergilio 
longiora 1114 e carminibus catullianis. Vide sis editorum ad eos 
versus adnotationes. 

Verg. Ecl. 3, 65 desideratur particula adversativa. Qua de causa 
scribendum esse censeo et fugit ad salices, set se cupit ante videri. 

Horatio C. 1, 2 scribenti obversatum opinor Catull. 11. Confer 
enim quaeso Horat. C. 1. 2, 7 sq. pecus egit altos visere montes et 
ibid. 15 ire deiectum monimenta regis cum Catull. 11, 9 sq. Sive 
trans altas gradietur Alpes | Caesaris visens monimenta magni. Ne 
mihi quidem abest suspicio quin Horatianum aequore dammas (12) 
colorem quasi traxerit a Catulli aequora Nilus (8). 

Apud ipsum Catullum primi carminis initium ita intelligendum 
esse suspicor, ut dono non verbum sed nomen esse putemus. Idem 
igitur valet illud Quoi dono atque: Cui dono dem. 

Catull. 2, 11-13 non ad secundum quod nunc est carmen pertinere 
satis esse debebat perspicuum. Suspicor equidem intercidisse 
versum in eodem vocabulo desinentem quo versum 11™"”, ut totum 
carmen, quod sic tertium esset, quattuor fuerit versuum, quorum 
primus: Passer, deliciae meae puellae. Is versus fortasse latet 3 (quod 
nunc est), 4, unde eum expellere volebat Sillig. 

Catull. 10, 7 iam particulam minime possum concoquere. Repo- 
nendum esse censeo nam, ut idem valeat quid esset | nam Bithynia 
atque: quidnam esset Bithynia. Atque v™ 8 iam dudum postliminio 
reversum stat ecquonam.—Versus 9” sic est distinguendus : Respondi 
— 1d quod erat — mihi neque ipsi (nam in fine versus sic scribendum 
esse credo atque insequente versu nec quaestoribus; alioquin enim 
illud praesertim quibus (12) non habet quo apte referatur). Atque 


210 Latin Authors 


vv. 14-16 melius se habet haec distinctio: quod illic | natum dicitur 
esse comparasti, | ad lecticam homines. — Versus 28-30 sic distinctos 
velim: illud quod modo dixeram me habere — | fugit me ratio; 
meus sodalis — | Cinna est Gaius — is ibi paravit. Illud cum 
paravit artissimo vinculo est coniungendum, ut obiectum directum 
verbi pronomen sit; cum intenta autem voce sunt enuntianda et me 
et meus sodalis et Cinna et is. Hinc cum alia apparent tum illud 
quoque, cum Arthuro Palmer me facere sagacissime suspicante 
nomina Cinnae Gai et Catulli Gai quasi tacite inter sese hic opponi. 
— De huius carminis scriptura hoc unum amplius addam, v™ 32 — 
id quod a quibusdam (atque utinam ab omnibus!) iam dudum est 
perspectum — non ferri posse mihi pararim. Nam e tralaticia 
scriptura haec evadit sententia: Utor eis tam bene quam si mihi, non 
alteri, pararim. At nec sibi ipse neque alteri lecticarios compara- 
verat Catullus. Ergo solum vera vetusta iam coniectura paratis. 

Initio carminis decimi Catullus se dicit a Varo e foro ductum esse 
otiosum. Otium igitur in causa fuit cur ludibrio esset scortillo. 
Undecimum carmen notissimo illo sapphico compositum est metro, 
quo metro non amplius usus est Catullus praeterquam in carmine 
51° —nisi adnumeres versiculos de otio. li autem versiculi falso 
illuc infersi sunt ubi steterat finis carminis e Sapphone expressi. 
Aliunde eos huc translatos esse suspicor et quidem e vicinitate 
alterius illius poematii sapphici. Ne multa, versiculos illos de otio 
molesto, ioculariter sane illos quidem scriptos, inter carmina quae 
nunc sunt 10""” et 11™"" ab ipso Catullo primitus collocatos esse 
conicio, ut decimum illud carmen aperte respicerent instar notissimi 
illius ““Haec fabula docet.”’ 

Catull. 64, 351 putridaque infirmis variabunt pectora palmis et 
ipsa putrida — sit venia verbo — videtur esse scriptura. Post 
mortem demum hominibus putrida esse pectora solent. At non de 
cadaveribus hoc loco agitur. Ergo reponendum — quod solum 
verum esse videtur — putria; quod idem Heinsio placuisse certior 
factus gaudeo. Ceteri, quod sciam, editores mendum intactum 
reliquerunt. 

Catull. 64, 384 namque particulam traiectum accipiunt editores, 
quod minime est verum; nam tota loci sententia in praesentes cum 
Parcae artissime coniuncto quasi cardine vertitur. Tu igitur vsus 
382-4 sic distingue: Talia praefantes quondam felicia Pelei | car- 


m 


a i λα 


Vergil 211 


mina divino cecinere <e> pectore Parcae | praesentes; namque 
ante domos cet. Huius distinguendi rationis felicia—ut Catulli (an 
scribae alicuius?) scrinia compilem—non est cur ego praefer; ipse 
sibi quisque statim perspexerit. 


ON VERGIL, ECLOGUES, I. 68-70." 


En umquam patrios longo post tempore finis 
pauperis et tuguri congesto caespite culmen 
post aliquot mea regna videns mirabor aristas? 

Both the interpretations of v. 70 that have been offered are well 
objected to—without, however, the offer of anything better—in 
Conington’s note ad loc. The traditional interpretation according to 
which aristas = messes = aestates = annos, would have everything 
in its favour, but for the feeble aliquot. But it seems not to have 
occurred to any one to correct this word. I have long thought, and 
still think, that the passage is to be righted by a change—palaeo- 
graphically scarcely a change—in aliquot. I would write and point 
the passage thus: , 

en umquam patrios longo post tempore finis 
pauperis et tuguri congesto caespite culmen— 
post, ah, quot mea regna videns mirabor aristas? 
It may be added that ah occurs in the Eclogues as follows: 1, 15; 


2, 60; 6, 47, 52, 77; 10, 47, 48, 49. 


AD VERGILII AENEIDEM, I. 39 544. 


Pallasne exurere classem 
Argivom atque ipsos potuit submergere ponto 
unius ob noxam et furias Aiacis ΟἹ εἰ ἢ 
Ipsa lovis rapidum iaculata e nubibus ignem 
disiecitque ratis evertitque aequora ventis, 
illum exspirantem transfixo pectore flammas 
turbine corripuit scopuloque infixit acuto; 
ast ego, quae divom incedo regina Iovisque 
et soror et coniunx, una cum gente tot annos 
bella gero. 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), p. 194-] 
3[From Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXI (1903), p. 46. ] 


212 Latin Authors 


His in versibus nequaquam clare apparet ea oppositio quae exstare 
debebat cum inter Minervam et IJunonem tum inter naves et Aiacem 
(cf. sis illud classem Argivom atque ipsos) : et mihi quidem vix esse 
dubitandum videtur quin e multis illis qui volventibus annis Vergilii 
carmina exscripserunt ab aliquo ita peccatum fuerit, ut quae fuerunt 
illa,et ipsum pronomina, ea commiscuerit atque in alterius alterum 
sedem leviter mutata forma migrare coegerit... Quod si verum est, 
ita refingendus est locus: 

Illa lovis rapidum cet. 
ipsum exspirantem cet. 


NOTE ON AENEID, IX. 485.1 


Miram habemus participii concordiam si verum id est quod 
praestant meliores codices Verg. Aen. 9, 485, ubi mater Euryali 
audita eius morte inter alia heu, inquit, terra ignota canibus data 
praeda Latinis. Exspectandum sane erat vel datus — nisi metrum 
obstaret— vel date. Hoc praestant teste Hirtzelio deteriores 
quidam codices atque quod maius procul dubio est favebat huic 
lectioni Bentley aut proprio Marte coniectura eam est assecutus. 
Originem duxit illud data ab altera data quod hoc positum est in 
versu superiore (adfari extremum miserae data copia matri). 


ΓΜ. note, } 


VE ——— — 


GREEK GRAMMAR, LEXICOGRAPHY AND 
ARCHAEOLOGY. 


THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF PURPOSE IN RELATIVE 
CLAUSES IN GREEK.’ 


Professor Tarbell’s brief notice of ‘The Deliberative Subjunctive 
in Relative Clauses in Greek,’ published in the July number of the 
Review (p. 302), informed me that I had not been a-mare’s-nesting 
alone in a rather out-of-the-way corner of Greek syntax. 

Some years ago my attention was arrested by the construction of 
the subjunctive in Xen. Anab. 1. 7, 7: ὥστε οὐ τοῦτο δέδοικα μὴ οὐκ ἔχω 
ὅτι δῶ ἑκάστῳ τῶν φίλων, ἂν εὖ γένηται, ἀλλὰ μὴ οὐκ ἔχω ἱκανοὺς οἷς δῶ, and 
also in the similar passage Xen. Azad. II. 4, 19-20: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν 
πολλαὶ γέφυραι dow, ἔχοιμεν ἂν ὅποι φυγόντες ἡμεῖς σωθῶμεν ἐὰν δὲ 
ἡμεῖς νικῶμεν, λελυμένης τῆς γεφύρας οὐχ ἕξουσιν ἐκεῖνοι ὅποι φύγωσιν. 

The construction appeared to me then, as it still does, after com- 
parison of other passages, one of purpose; for we might—grammati- 
cae causa—write in the former passage ὅπως (ἂν) αὐτοῖς δῶ, and in 
the latter τόπον ἐπιτήδειον ὅπως (ἂν) ἐκεῖσε φυγόντες σωθῶμεν. 

I was glad to find my view supported by so excellent an authority 
as Professor Goodwin. His several statements on the subject are 
as follows: 

Gk. Moods and Tenses (ed. 7, 1879) ὃ 65, 1, N. 1 (a) (p. 138): 

‘The Future Indicative is the only form regularly used in prose 
after the relative in this sense’ (i. e. to express purpose). 

Ibid. § 65, 1, N. 3 (a) (p. 139): 

‘The Attic Greek allows the subjunctive in such phrases as ἔχει 
ὅτι εἴπῃ, he has something to say; where the irregularity seems 
to be caused by the analogy of the common expression οὐκ ἔχει 
6 τι (or τί) εἴπῃ, equivalent to οὐκ οἶδεν 6 τι εἴπῃ he knows not what he 
shail say, which contains an indirect statement’ (i. 6. an indirect de- 
liberative question). 

Under the second of these statements, which obviously bears 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 93-95.] 


214 Greek Grammar 


directly upon the point in question, we find cited as the first 
example Isoc. Pan. p. 49 C. § 44 (one of Professor Tarbell’s ex- 
amples): Τοιοῦτον ἔθος παρέδοσαν, wore... . ἑκατέρους ἔχειν ἐφ᾽ 
ols φιλοτιμηθῶσιν, with the translation that both may have things 
in which they ‘may glory’. Goodwin adds in parenthesis: 

‘Here there is no indirect question, for the meaning is not that 
they may know in what they are to glory’, and he cites his note 
appended to Felton’s /socrates, Ὁ. 135, which I quote here for the 
sake of comparison: 

‘The peculiar use of the subjunctive in ἔχειν ἐφ᾽ οἷς φιλοτιμηθῶσιν 
may perhaps be explained by the analogy of the common construc- 
tion οὐκ ἔχω τί (Or 6 τι) εἴπω, non habeo quid dicam, where the indirect 
question is obvious. The transition from οὐκ ἔχω 6 τι εἴπω to ἔχω ὅ 
τι εἴπω might be easily made, although in the latter all trace of the 
indirect question disappears. Other similar examples are cited by 
Kriiger (Gr. Gr. § 54. 7, A. 2), in all of which the leading verb is 
ἔχω. These are Plat. Symp. Ὁ. 194 D [another of Professor Tar- 
bell’s examples], ἐὰν μόνον ἔχῃ ὅτῳ διαλέγηται, ἀηα Xen. Oecon. 7, 20, 
ev ὅτι εἰσφέρωσιν. In Plat. Phaedr. p. 255 E [one of Professor 
Tarbell’s examples, wrongly cited as 254 E]and Lysias im Andoc. 
§ 42, we have the same construction, if we accept Bekker’s emenda- 
tion 6 τι λέγῃ for 6 τι λέγει, which the sense seems to require. Com- 
pare also Plat. /on. p. 535 B, where we find ἀπορεῖς 6 τι λέγῃς and 
evropeis 6 τι λέγῃς in the same sentence; here the transition is espe- 
cially simple. Even if we explain εὐπορεῖς 6 τι λέγῃς as an indirect 
question [though it seems clearly quite equivalent to ἔχεις ὅ τι λέγῃς, 
cf. ἵππων εὐπορήσαντες::Ξἷππους λαβόντες, Xen. Hellen. 1. 35], it seems 
a perversion of language to apply that name to the others as Kriiger 
does. Of course, these remarks will not apply to the doubtful ex- 
ample Thucyd. vii. 25, discussed in the note [1. e. in an insertion 
in Felton’s commentary on Isocrates Pan., loc cit.], or to the cases 
of the optative there quoted.’ The passages from Plat. Symp. and 
Xen. Oecon. are cited in the Moods and Tenses (loc. cit.). 

Goodwin’s note referred to in the last quotation deserves to be 
given here in full, as follows: 

‘The subjunctive and optative are very rare in this construction 
in Attic Greek, the future indicative being the only regular form 
In Homer, however, the subjunctive and optative are commonly 


ee ae ee ee - ἡ 


Subjunctive of Purpose in Relative Clauses 215 


used, this older construction corresponding precisely to the Latin, 
as the relation of the two languages would lead us to expect. 
Another (doubtful) Attic example of the subjunctive may be found 
in Thuc. vii, 25 πρέσβεις ἄγουσα, οἵπερ φράσωσιν, Kal... ἐποτρύ- 
νωσιν. Kriiger, in his note on this passage of Thuc. (2nd 
edit., 1861), is very severe on those who retain οἵπερ with the 
subjunctive, for which he substitutes ὅπως on the authority of a 
single MS. [Classen’s note on the passage (2nd edit., 1884), is this: 
ὅπως aus dem vat. st. οἵπερ von den neueren Herausgg. 
aufgenommen, da das Relativpronomen mit einem Konjunktiv des 
Zweckes im attischen Sprachgebrauch nicht nachzuweisen ist.’] 
He explains φιλοτιμηθῶσιν, in the present passage of Isocrates, 
as a subjunctive in an (indirect) dubitative question [1. 6. the ex- 
planation of Professor Tarbell, following Madvig]. The following 
examples of the aorist optative, however, show at least that the 
older construction was not unknown to the Attic poets:— ἄνδρα 
δ᾽ οὐδέν᾽ ἔντοπον, οὐδ᾽ doris ἀρκέσειν οὐδ᾽ ὅστις συλλάβοιτο, 
Soph. Phil. 280; γόνιμον δὲ ποιητὴν ἂν οὐχ εὕροις ἔτι ζητῶν ἄν, 
ὅστις ῥῆμα γενναῖον λάκοι, Aristoph. Ran. 96. In ver. 98 of the 
Ran. we find the regular Attic construction, ὅστις φθέγξεται, 
referring to precisely the same thing as ὅστις λάκοι above. Both 
these examples of the optative must be explained as relative sen- 
tences, and the subjunctive is certainly not more objectionable than 
the optative. Nor can the present example from Isocr. be ex- 
plained as interrogative without great violence to the sense; the idea 
is not that they may know what they are to glory in, but that they 
may have things in which they may glory. See also ὑφ᾽ οὗ πεισθέν- 
τες πρόοισθε͵ Dem. Phil. ii. ὃ 8.’ 

In G. M. and T. § 65, n. 3 (Ὁ) (ed. 7) we find the statement: 
‘The Present or Aorist Optative very rarely occurs in Attic Greek 
after a past tense, but more frequently after another optative.’ The 
examples are those given above with the addition of Plat. Rep. iii. 
308 B, ὅς μιμοῖτο καὶ λέγοι (depending on χρώμεθα ἄν). Dem. 
Phil. ii. § 8 appears as Dem. PAil. ii. 67, 20 (with fuller text and 
προεῖσθε for πρόοισθε). 

Goodwin, however, is hardly consistent in his treatment; for under 
G. M. and T. § 71 (ed. 7): ‘when a question in the direct form 
would be expressed by an interrogative Subjunctive, indirect ques- 


216 Greek Grammar 


tions after primary tenses retain the Subjunctive; after secondary 
tenses the Subjunctive may be either changed to the same tense of 
the Optative or retained in its original form,’ we find not only 
Aesch. P. 471 (Professor Tarbell’s first example), but also (albeit 
with the qualification that it ‘may be explained on this principle as 
an interrogative, or by § 65, 1, n. 3 [see above], as a relative clause’) 
Xen. Anab. i. 7, 7, which clearly belongs to the other class of 
passages ; and this inconsistency will be found in the revised edition 
(1890) of the G. M. and T. 

In this new edition we find the first statement cited above from 
the old edition unchanged in §§ 572-3. The examples of the opta- 
tive under ὃ 573 comprise (besides Soph. Phil. 281 of Professor 
Tarbell’s list) Soph. Tr. 903, κρύψασ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ἔνθα μή τις εἰσίέδοι, 
βρυχᾶτο (a verse which does not well suit the context as it stands, 
and which I suspect to be corrupt), and Plat. Rep. 578 E, εἴ τις 
θεῶν ἄνδρα θείη cis ἐρημίαν, ὅπου αὐτῷ μηδεὶς μέλλοι βοηθήσειν, in which 
latter, however, the optative is merely an ordinary instance of attrac- 
tion of mood, the idea of purpose being contained in μέλλειν without 
regard to the mood. (Goodwin’s remark in parenthesis ‘This may 
be purely conditional’ is a good example of the mental bias which 
has led him to drag in a ‘condition’ at every turn to the great detri- 
ment of a valuable work.) 

As will be seen by the quotations I have made, more than one-half 
of Professor Tarbell’s examples—‘of the phenomenon which had 
not been recognized by any previous grammarian’—have been 
examined and discussed by Kriiger and Goodwin. 

It seems to me now that τὰ πολλὰ προκόψας, οὐ πολλοῦ πόνου 
pe δεῖ in setting in clear light the source of the error into which 
Professor Tarbell and others have fallen in discussing the con- 
struction in hand. The trouble, I believe, lies entirely in the 
ambiguity of ἔχω = 1, ‘I have,’ 2, ‘I know’ = οἶδα (cf. κατέχω in 
Romaic), 3, ‘I am able’ = δύναμαι, and of dors = 1. An indefinite 
or general relative, 2. τις introducting an indirect question. To 
* answers ἔστι with a personal pronoun in the dative expressed 
or understood, and the definite or particular relative may, as we 
have seen above, be used as well as the indefinite or general, though 
this is less common. 

It remains for me, before enumerating and commenting upon 


ἔχω 


Subjunctiwe of Purpose in Relative Clauses 217 


some examples which I have collected from my own reading, to 
examine the three examples which Professor Tarbell gives of a 
so-called deliberative clause after other verbs than ἔχω and ἔστι. 

Soph. Pil. 938: ὑμῖν τάδ᾽, od yap ἄλλον οἶδ᾽ ὅτῳ λέγω may be 
paraphrased ot yap ἄλλον ἔχω, καθὰ οἶδα, ὅτῳ λέγω. The fact 
that the antecedent is here expressed seems enough to show that 
there is no relation with an indirect question. So Isocr. xxi. 1: 
Οὐ προφάσεως ἀπορῶ, δι᾿ ἥντινα λέγω ὑπὲρ Νικίου rovrovi = ἔχω πρόφασιν 
κτὲ. where also the antecedent is expressed. 

In Soph. Pil. 279 sqq. δρῶντα μὲν ναῦς, ἃς ἔχων ἐναυστόλουν, | 
πάσας βεβώσας, ἄνδρα δ᾽ οὐδέν᾽ ἔντοπον, | οὐχ (ἄνδρα) ὅστις ἀρκέσειεν, 
οὐδ᾽ (ἄνδρα) ὅστις νόσου | κάμνοντι συλλάβοιτο, the object of δρῶντα 
is not ναῦς but ναῦς βεβώσας (the fact of their departure), and it does 
no violence to the thought to supply ἔχοντα governing ἄνδρα. At 
all events, the expression is but a short step beyond the customary. 

In the first of my examples from the Anabasis (vid. supra) ἔχω 
is evidently éyw' and the sentence is to be explained like that in 
Isocr. Pan. In Romaic one would say δὲ(ν) φοβοῦμαι (φοβᾶμαι) va 
μὴν ἔχω τίποτε νὰ δώσω (δώκω), an additional proof, as I 
believe, that the explanation of such a construction as one of purpose 
is in accordance with the genius of the Greek language. In my 
second example, although I am inclined to take ἔχω as ἔχω', it may 
be understood as ἔχω and the dependent clause will then contain 
a deliberative subjunctive. In Xen. Hellen. I. 3. 21 and I. 4. 15 there 
is a like possible ambiguity. 

In Soph. Antig. 270 sqq.: οὐ γὰρ εἴχομεν | οὔτ᾽ ἀντιφωνεῖν οὔθ 
ὅπως δρῶντες καλῶς | πράξαιμεν, the infinitive in the first member seems 
to prove (as Professor Jebb thinks, who cites as parallel Az. 428, cf. 
his note ad /oc.) that ἔχω here is ἔχω", 

Eur. Orest. 722 sq.: κοὐκ ἔτ᾽ εἰσὶν ἐλπίδες, | ὅποι τραπόμενος θάνατον 
Ἀργείων φ ὕγω is another instance of the purpose-construction. 

Eur. Alc, 120 sq.: οὐκ ἔχω ἐπὶ τίνα | μηλοθύταν πορευθῶ xré. seems 
clearly an instance of ἔχω" as shown by the interrogative pronoun. 

Aesch. Ag. 1530 sqq.: ἀμηχανῶ φροντίδος στερηθεὶς---πᾳ τράπωμαι 
is again an example of the indirect deliberative. Notice that here 
the phrase ἀμηχανῶ φροντίδος στερηθεὶς is a stro#E οὐκ οἶδα. 

A good example of the purpose-construction from a later writer 
is Plut. Caes.c. 5: οὕτω διέθηκε τὸν δῆμον, ὡς καινὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς, καινὰς 


218 Greek Grammar 


δὲ τιμὰς ζητεῖν ἕκαστον, als αὐτὸν ἀμείψαιντο, unless this be deemea 
a Latinism. 

If the MSS. are to be trusted, we sometimes have the optative of 
purpose, instead of the subjunctive, after primary tenses. Cf. Eur. 
Ale. 112-117: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ναυκληρῶν | ἔσθ᾽ ὅποι τις---παραλύσαι (MSS— 
λῦσαι, Nauck—dAvoa), Aesch. Prom. 201 sq. οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτῳ | μείζονα 
μοῖραν νείμαι μ᾽ ἢ σοί (cited by Jerram, ad Eur. Alc. Ζϑε. cit.), Aesch. 
Cho. 172: οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πλὴν ἐμοῦ κείραιτο νιν (M. κείρετό νεῖν). 
Other examples of this construction, some emendable to the sub- 
junctive, are given along with instances of the optative without dy 
in direct questions, in Mr Sidgwick’s valuable Appendix I of his 
edition of the Choepheroe. 

In conclusion I add one example (there are doubtless others in 
Attic writers’) of the relative clause of purpose after δίδωμι ---- Hes. 
Op. 57 Sq.: τοῖς δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἀντὶ πυρὸς δώσω κακὸν ᾧ Kev ἅπαντες--τέρπωνται 
κατὰ θυμὸν ἑὸν κακὸν ἀμφαγαπῶντες. 


NOTES ON THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF PURPOSE IN RELA- 
TIVE CLAUSES IN ATTIC GREEK? 


The paper contained an examination of the idiom οὐκ ἔστι (μοι), 
or οὐκ ἔχω, ὅς (ὅστις or rel. adv.) and subj. (or opt. after 
secondary tense). The prototype of the Attic idiom was sought in 
Homeric Greek: Cf. Jl. 21, 111 sqq., Jl. 19, 355-7, 1]. 6, 450 sqq., 
Il. 4, 164, Il. 21, 103 sq., Od. 6, 201 sqq., Il. 3, 459 sq., Od. 15, 310 
sq., with Soph. At. 514 sq., Eur. H. F. 1245, Xen. Anab. τ. 7, 7, 
Eur. Or. 722 sq. (For other examples from Attic Greek, see Class. 
Rev. vi. pp. 93-5.)* It was suggested that “the gradual obsoles- 
cence of the subjunctive which can be traced in Ionic and Attic Greek 
in what Weber calls ‘unvollstandige Finalsatze’ with ὅπως, seems 
to have gone hand in hand with a similar obsolescence in the kindred 
relative final-clauses (i. e. relative in the more restricted sense). 
In this process the finite construction of the rel. clause may have 
been influenced by the use of the fut. particip. to express purpose 
after verbs of motion, a usage so extensive in Ionic Greek that in 


1 [Professor Earle ha@ queried this statement in his copy. ] 








?[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXIII — 


(1892), pp. xvii-xviii.] 
* [See last article. ] 





The Moods of Will 219 


Herodotus viii-ix, which according to my examination, contain not 
a single fut. rel. clause of purpose, and no certain instance of the 
οὐκ ἔχω 6, τι constr. with (so-called) final subjunct., we find the 
fut. part. in all 17 times. ’——‘ In such a sweeping away of the 
subjunctive construction we must seek an explanation of a survival 
as certain as the οὐκ ἔχω ὅ, te (6) construction appears to be, 
examined from the point of view of historical syntax. It is here 
that Goodwin’s remark is suggestive, if, instead of saying that the 
construction in question ‘may be explained by the analogy of’ the 
indirect deliberative, we say that it is to be explained from the essen- 
tial nature of the subjunctive, traced in its development in Homer, 
and’ found again, in perhaps still further development, in Attic 
Greek, as a survival, sometimes obscured and confused by the in- 
direct deliberative, the similar form of which served to prevent it 
from sharing the fate of its companion relative clauses of purpose. 
If we put the case in this form (pointing out in our support the 
triple ambiguity of ἔχειν and the ambiguity of ὅστις), we shall, 
it seems to me, be as near the truth as we are likely to get in so 
subtle a matter.” ; 

[The writer did not make himself responsible for any particular 
theory of the original meaning of the Greek subjunctive. He does 
not, however, wish himself to be considered as favouring the putting 
on the same footing, though they may both for convenience’ sake be 
classed as “‘final,” of such subjunctives as those which are discussed 
above, and the final subjunctive developed from the independent 
hortatory subjunctive. Cf.-Eur. Suppl. 1232, with Soph. Antig. 
1322 sq., 1184 sq.] 


SOME REMARKS ON THE MOODS OF WILL IN GREEK. 


In the imperative—the mood of command—the issuer of the 
command, the speaker, is always distinct from the grammatical 
subject. Commands imply superiority on the part of the speaker. 
But let the speaker be one of a body the members of which act, or 
are to act, together: in urging to action the speaker will be urging 
to joint action, he will include himself with the others, he will use 
the first pers. pl. The resultant verbal form will be the first pers. 


1[From the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. XXV,. 
(1894 : special session), pp. I-li.) 


220 Greek Grammar 


pl. of the subjunctive. In the case of this “hortative subjunctive” 
as in that of the imperative, it is the speaker that urges to action; 
the grammatical subject (in this case including the speaker) is to 
carry out the action. Exhortation addressed to oneself takes the 


form of the first sing. of the subjunctive. In exhortation the atti- 


tude of the speaker is one of confidence: he is, to a certain extent, 
the leader. But let an element of hesitation or uncertainty enter 
the exhorter’s mind and instead of an exhortation we shall have an 
appeal. This will take the interrogative form. Thus: ἴωμεν “let 
us go”? ἴωμεν “wilt thou (will ye) that we go?” (That such is the 
meaning that the Greeks attached to the interrogative expression is 
shown by the prefixing of βούλει [βούλεσθε] and θέλεις [θέλετε]. 
This is not a case of parataxis proper. We might fairly term the 
prefixed verb a verbal preposition.) In the exhortation the speaker 
constitutes himself, to a certain extent, a leader; in the appeal he 
defers to the will of others, and, in so far, constitutes himself a 
subordinate. This element of subordination leads to the wider use 
of the subjunctive in appeals to persons not included in the gram- 
matical subject, whether such persons be human superiors or super- 
natural entities (gods, fate, &c.). I have chosen to treat the 
extended appeal in its interrogative form, as more obviously evolved: 
but the exhortation is similarly extended. (I use the term “appeal” 
to cover both.) So it comes, at length, that the imperative is the 
mood of the ruler, the subjunctive that of the “man under authority.” 
From logical the subjunctive passes to grammatical subordination. 
(In Od. 5, 465 the construction is simply a formal extension of the 
appeal. Both in this passage and its parallel, Il. 11, 404, Odysseus 
appeals to his θυμός. The context is against Professor Hale’s inter- 
pretation [Anticip. Subjunctive, p. 13].)—The appeal may be more 
or less abject: yet the form of expression remains the same. The 
attitude of the speaker is thus dwelt upon in order to draw attention 
to the fact that in the subjunctive the will of the speaker is always 
conditioned. He desires, he strives, he urges, he appeals; but he is 
always limited in his action by some one or something external. He 
is always conscious of an obstacle. He is never consciously free. 
I would, therefore, call the subjunctive the mood of trammelled 
effort —The reflex of trammelled effort might well be an expression 
of resignation—naturally negative. Thus ἴωμεν “let us go,” μὴ 





a 





The Moods of Will 221 


ἴωμεν “let us not go”; but οὐκ ἴωμεν “we shall not go.” This may 
explain Il. 1, 262. Should we resort here to the familiar Greek 
device of emphasizing the negation by making it a separate sentence, 
we should expand this passage to οὐ γάρ πω---οὐδ᾽ ἔστιν ὅπως ἴδωμαι, 
We shall thus have traced to its origin a form of expression 
that has given much trouble. For a different view cf. Professor 
W. G. Hale’s valuable Extended and “Remote” Deliberatives in 
Greek [Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc., Vol. XXIV.] and The Antici- 
patory Subjunctive in Greek and Latin [Stud. in Class. Philol. of 
the Univ. of Chicago, Vol. I.]. In the former of these treatises Mr 
Hale has proved (as I cheerfully concede) that the attempt made 
by others (and by myself) to bring οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως with the sub- 
junctive into the category of “final” constructions (in the generally 
accepted meaning of that term) rests on no sound basis. The 
thanks of scholars are due to Mr Hale for putting the case in clearer 
light. But I cannot draw the sharp line that he does between what 
he calls the “‘volitive,” I the “hortative”’ and “deliberative” or the 
“mood of trammelled effort,’ on the one hand, and what he would 
call the “prospective” subjunctive, I (tentatively) the “mood of 
resignation or resigned effort,’ on the other. Nor can I think that 
the “final” subjunctive is not a development of the subjunctive on 
its stronger rather than on its weaker side. The wide range of 
meaning in the subjunctive makes it impossible to subdivide it 
certainly without some external sign. That this is to be found in 
the ἄν of subordinate clauses I cannot concede.—The optative is 
also a mood of trammelled effort, like the subjunctive. It starts as 
a prayer to a superhuman power, declines to a wish (a prayer with 
the god left out), then to an expression of inclination, then to one 
of concession or resignation. The weakened opt. with οὐ instead of 
μή and with ἄν in Att. Gk., bears traces of the wish (paraphrased by 
βουλοίμην ἄν w. inf.) and of the inclination (paraphrased by ἡδέως dy 
w. opt.), while the feeling that the action of the verb is possible 
under conditions (the condition being indicated by dy as in the case 
of the corresponding subj.) is brought out clearly when we have a 
paraphrase in the form δυναίμην ἄν w. inf. The opt. appears from 
the start as logically dependent or contingent, as an appeal to the will 
of the gods. (A careful analysis of the meanings of the opt. accord- 
ing to the grammatical persons might be of value.) —If what has 


222 Greek Grammar 


been said of the attitude of the speaker in the case of the subjunct. 
be true, that mood could not be that by which “the earliest expres- 
sion of the will of the speaker for his own act, 1. e., the statement 
of resolve’ (= Eng. “I will”) was made, as Mr Hale affirms 
(Anticip. Subjunct., p. 14). The subjunct. is the mood not of “will- 
ing” but of “shalling,” and in Gk. we can trace the same distinction 
as in Eng. The modal form that expresses the “free will” of the 
subject (in this case “willer’” and grammatical subject are identical 
as in the Eng. will-forms) is the so-called “future indicative.” This 
fact we find brought out frequently by a paraphrase of the future 
after εἰ consisting of βούλομαι or θέλω with the inf. The special 
“modal” force of the εἰ protasis, which has been so admirably 
brought out by Professor Gildersleeve, seems most readily explained 
in this way. 


OF THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN RELATIVE CLAUSES AFTER 
οὐκ ἔστιν AND ITS KIN.* 


In the last volume (VII.) of the Harvard Studies in Classical 
Philology the first place (pp. 1-12) is occupied by an article by Pro- 
fessor William W. Goodwin entitled On the Extent of the Delibera- 
tive Construction in Relative Clauses in Greek. This paper reviews 
in part the discussion started by Mr Arthur Sidgwick in the 
Classical Review of April, 1891, and also sets forth Mr Goodwin’s 


latest view of the matter. I have been prompted to write what - 


follows by the fact that Mr Goodwin takes no notice of a theory 
broached by me in Some Remarks on the Moods of Will in Greek 
which appeared in the Transactions of the American Philological 
Association for 1895 (vol. XXVI., Proceedings of the Special Ses- 
sion, 1894, pp. 1.-li.)? but credits me with a view of the subject of 
the discussion that I have expressly abandoned. It is with a certain 
hesitation and regret that I thus express my disagreement on an 
important matter of Greek syntax with one to whom I—like so 
many others—owe the first impulse to the study of Greek syntax; 
but I venture to do so at once in justice to myself and with a desire 
to contribute to the ascertainment of truth in regard to the debated 


1 (From the Classical Review, Vol. X (1896), pp. 421-424.] 
? [See last article. ] 


ee ee ee 


The Subjunctive in Relative Clauses 223 


construction. I begin with a brief discussion of certain of Mr 
Goodwin’s statements. 

At p. 1 Professor Goodwin speaks of the clauses in question as 
seeming ‘to lie in the borderland between indirect deliberative ques- 
tions and final relative clauses.’ Now both the indirect deliberative 
question and the final relative clause are ‘subjunctive’ developments 
of the primitive ‘hortative.’ Thus the ‘hortative’ ἴωμεν let’s go— 
I use the colloquial form to distinguish the exhortation from the 
appeal—becomes, when treated as an interrogation, ἴωμεν ; shall 
we go? in which the question is put (and this is to be emphasized) 
to the subject of the verbal form minus ἐγώ, the action being at the 
same time conceived as to be performed by the entire subject, ἡμεῖς. 
This interrogative ἴωμεν ; may, of course, be subordinated (indirect 
deliberative question). The ‘final’ clause, whether of the ἵνα type 
or of the relative pronominal type, subordinates, or makes a ‘sub- 
junctive’ properly so-called, of ἴωμεν let’s go. The pedigree of 
the divergent uses of the same verbal form may be indicated thus: 


1 Hortative 





2 Deliberative 
| | 
3 Indirect deliberative 4 Final “pure” (ἵνα) 


5 Final “mixed” (relative ad- 
verb or pronoun admitting ἄν) 


Mr Goodwin’s ‘borderland’ lies between 3 and 5 and is, as appears 
in his subsequent discussion, a territory of analogy—whether true 
or false is beside the question. 

I have been at pains thus plainly to set forth the genealogy of 
these uses because some of the disagreement among those that have 
engaged in the discussion I conceive to be due to the disregarding 
or ignoring off the steps in the development of the several uses of 
what we call collectively the subjunctive. That I have been guilty 
of the fault of which I venture to accuse others I have elsewhere 
(Transactions 1895, loc. cit.) admitted; and I here again concede 
that in claiming that I was in error in seeking to derive the form 
of clause in question from the relative clause of purpose Mr. Hale 
is entirely in the right—, and that too although I do not admit the 


. 


224 Greek Grammar 


truth of all that Mr Hale has said in his ‘Extended’ and ‘Remote’ 
Deliberatives in Greek in refutation of my former position. But 
it is not my intention to deal now (if ever; for we differ, ¢.g., toto 
caelo in our understanding of the primitive force of the subjunctive) 
with Mr Hale’s arguments. It is, after all, of little moment in the 
case at issue to discuss the legitimacy of the steps by which the 
falsity of a position that one has taken up has been shown, if one 
but admit the falsity. But to return to Mr Goodwin’s paper. 
At p. 2 Mr Goodwin gives as types of the construction in ques- 

tion the following: 

ἔχειν ἐφ᾽ οἷς φιλοτιμηθῶσιν, Isocr. iv. 44. 

οὐκ ἔχω σόφισμ᾽ ὅτῳ ἀπαλλαγῶ, Aesch. Prom. 470. 

οὐδένα εἶχον, ὅστις ἐπιστολὰς πέμψειε, Eur. J. 7. 588. 
Ι may be pardoned if I anticipate the statement of my own theory 
so far as to call attention to the fact that Mr Goodwin gives here 
only clauses dependent upon a form of ἔχειν and none that depend 
upon a form of εἶναι; for it is at this point that we part company. 

At p. 3 Mr Goodwin says: ‘It is generally admitted—that the 

same deliberative interrogative may follow οὐκ ἔχω in the sense of 
ἀπορῶ, aS in οὐκ ἔχω ὅ τι εἴπω, | have nothing to say; where, how- 
ever, the English translation is misleading, the literal meaning being 
I have not (i. e. 1 am at a loss) what I shall say. That 6 τι is really 
interrogative here is plain from cases like οὐκ ἔχω τί λέγω, 1 have 
nothing to say, Dem. ix. 45; οὐκ ἔχω τί φῶ, Aesch. Cho. gt and 
οὐκ ἔχω ἐπὶ τίνα μηλοθύταν πορευθῶ, Eur. Alc. 120; and this appears 
in the Latin non habeo quid (or quod) dicam. Here I cannot 
but think that he falls into error. Although Mr Hale seems 
more than inclined (Transactions Am. Philol. Assoc. 1893, p. 161 
sq.) to call me to task for assuming that the ambiguity of ἔχειν 
(have, know, be able—the last meaning playing no part in the 
present discussion) and of ὅστις (ὅς -ἰ τὶς and also—according to 
Greek feeling, I am more than inclined to think—ds + tis; =r1is; 
in indirect questions) has been ignored, I cannot but think that 
what I wrote then (Class. Rev. 1892, p. 94) was fairly justified. 
Does not the fact that the simple interrogative does not (certainly) 
appear in any of the examples of the construction in question, 
whereas the compound ὅστις or the simple ὅς is used in the debated 


construction (though also in the indirect interrogative clause), shew 
1 [See above, p. 213. | 


The Subjunctive in Relative Clauses 225 


. that the Greeks distinguished, to a certain and very considerable 
extent, between the meanings have and know in ἔχεν Mr Good- 
win’s translation of οὐκ ἔχω 6 τι εἴπω, when οὐκ ἔχω = ἀπορῶ, 
should not, I must believe, be “I have nothing to say” but J have 
no knowledge what I am to say. The same remark applies to οὐκ 
ἔχω τί λέγω. For a similar reason it appears wrong to state the 
Latin form as if quod were a mere variant of quid. 

Mr Goodwin is hardly fair to himself when he speks of his 
‘uninstructed mind’ (p. 3). The seemingly spontaneous feeling of 
a mind fit for and trained to the consideration of niceties of expres- 
sion may be nearer right than the δεύτεραι φροντίδες. 1 am sorry 
that Mr Goodwin regrets my ‘bringing up in judgment against him’ 
his note of 1863; but then he has brought up in judgment against 
me opinions that I have expressly modified (Transactions, 1895, 
loc. cit.). 

I should anticipate too much of my own theory (only a restate- 
ment, after all), were I to take up the affirmative forms ἔχειν ἐφ᾽ 
οἷς φιλοτιμηθῶσιν etc. at this point. Their explanation follows 
from, or better, goes hand in hand with that of the negative form. 

The example from Plato’s Jon (discussed pp. 3 and 4) proves 
what the forms of expression used in the debated construction prove 
elsewhere, viz. that the Greeks did not hold the relative and the 
interrogative sharply asunder at all stages of their development. 
It does not prove that the two expressions are to be explained as 
steps in one and the same course of development. Secondary con- 
tamination does not prove primary community of source. 

I need’ hardly say in respect of the second paragraph on p. 4 that 
I deny Mr. Goodwin’s major premiss that 6 te δῶ in the passage 
in the Anabasts is an interrogative clause. 

The paragraph beginning ‘We have thus come’ (p. 4) seems to 
bring some distant hope of a nearer agreement; for Mr Goodwin 
here appeals to the force of the independent interrogative ἔλθωμεν ; 
as the interrogative of the independent hortative ἔλθωμεν. 

At p. 6 Mr Goodwin at length gives what it could be wished that 
he had given earlier, examples of the debated construction dependent 
upon a form of εἶναι (Eur. Orest. 722 etc.). Curiously, as it seems 
to me, he treats this formula as a development of the ἔχειν formula, 
not vice versa. 


226 Greek Grammar 


At the same page Mr Goodwin concludes his discussion of the 
subjunctive per se by giving his formal approval to the term ‘ex- 
tended deliberative.’ Inasmuch as his subsequent treatment of the 
optative is directly dependent on his treatment of the subjunctive, 
I may be permitted to set forth here what I venture to believe to 
be the true explanation of the construction under discussion,—an 
explanation at which I have already* more than hinted.? This brings 
us back at once to genealogy. 

It seems but fair to take as the primitive use of the subjunctive 
(using the term in its commonly accepted wide sense) that which 
is simplest and which has best stood the test of time in independent 
use, viz. the ‘hortative.’ Ἴωμεν let’s go and μὴ ἴωμεν let's not go 


*TSee last article. ] 

31 venture to add here in the form of a foot-note remarks on one or two 
points in Professor Goodwin’s treatment of the optative in his paper. 

In Class. Rev. 1893, p. 451°, I have offered an explanation based on analogy— 
and which I still believe to be correct—of the opt. in Soph. Trach. 903.—In 
Ar. Ran, 97 why should λάκοι not be treated like πέμψειε in Eur. J.T. 588? 
The one verb ‘expresses purpose’ just as ‘clearly’—or unclearly— as the 
other. The φθέγξεται in the next verse is not unnatural. We pass from a 
should (for a shall) utter to a more independent will utter. Thus the opta- 
tive would be due to attraction or assimilation —Inasmuch as μέλλοι βοηθήσειν 
(p. 9) = βοηθήσοι, it were better treated simply as a μέλλει βοηθήσειν that has 
turned optative by assimilation, just as a βοηθήσει might—After what Mr 
Goodwin says about ‘a distinct conditional force’ in the example just alluded 
to I will not venture to discuss the reference to my own attitude of mind that 
he makes in the footnote on p. 10. Our points of view are too widely separ- 
ate.—It need hardly be said that in discussing Soph. Phil. 270-282 I believe 
Mr Jebb to have gone too far back when he says that the dependent optatives 
here represent direct questions (rls dpxéoy; and τίς συλλάβηται ;). In my view 
they should rather be treated as optative mutations of οὔτις dpxéoy and οἴτις 
συλλάβηται in analytic form.—With Mr Goodwin’s remark (p. 11) that ‘the 
difference between ὁρῶν οὐδένα ὅστις ἀρκέσῃ and ἔχων οὐδένα ὅστις ἀρκέσῃ is 
surely not generic; etc. (to the end of the sentence) I am in complete accord. 
—Is not Mr Goodwin’s remark (p. 12) that ‘the aorist optative in Dem. vi, 8 
seems to come from a tendency to use an optative after the preceding optative 
and an objection to using the future’ somewhat (mea quidem opinione, in prin- 
ciple) at variance with what he says in the first paragraph of the foot-note 
to p. 10?—I may be pardoned if I add that I have (or rather, had) ‘considered 
carefully Gildersleeve’s wise and acute remarks’ (see foot-note p. 10) and 
that I too regard his formula ὅπως ἄν τες ἥν πως as ‘a powerful solvent.’ 

*[See p. 28.] 


The Subjunctive in Relative Clauses 227 


with their corresponding interrogative use (the “deliberative’) form, 
as is generally admitted, the basis of many (at least) of the depend- 
ent uses of.the subjunctive, or, as may well be said, the basis of the 
‘subjunctive.’ But there is another independent use of the verbal 
type which ἴωμεν represents besides the ‘hortative’ and the ‘de- 
liberative-—a use which corresponds to our English shall-future. 
The negative in this case is οὐ not μή and the first example is at 
Il. A 262. This usage may be explained as derived from the ‘horta- 
tive’: but there is apparently an intermediate step. In the hortative 
the subject of the verbal form includes the person or persons ad- 
dressed by the speaker. So too, when the ‘hortative’ is used in the 
singular in communion with one’s self. But both the ‘hortative’ 
and the ‘deliberative’ may become, not unnaturally, an ‘appellative,’ 
the person or persons addressed being conceived as entirely apart 
from and external to the subject of the verbal form. 

The answer to the ‘hortative’ is expressed in terms of the ‘horta- 
tive’; that is to say, either it is a mere echo, if the will of the persons 
addressed coincide with that of the speaker; or it is the contra- 
dictory of the form used by the speaker, if the will of those to 
whom he addresses himself be adverse. In the case of the ‘appella- 
tive,’ however, the answer is expressed in terms of the imperative. 
But besides the answer to the appeal we have to consider what I 
have elsewhere called a ‘reflex,’ i.e. the verbal expression of the 
impression that the result of the appeal leaves upon the mind of 
the appellant. At the place just referred to (Transactions, 1895, 
p. li.), after characterizing the subjunctive in general as ‘the mood 
of trammelled effort’—a term of which, it may be added, I believe 
Mr Hale approves, I have said: ‘the reflex of trammelled effort 
might well be an expression of resignation—naturally negative. 
This may explain J/. 1, 262.’ [Of course, the positive ‘reflex,’ 
equally possible, would express what one is to do under the authority 
or control of persons or circumstances.] ‘Should we resort here 
to the familiar Greek device of emphasizing the negation by making 
it a separate sentence, we should expand this passage to od γάρ 
πω -- οὐδ᾽ ἐστὶν ὅπως ἴδωμα. γε shall thus have traced to its 
origin a form of expression that has given much trouble.’ This 
view of the construction in question I still hold, although I use the 
term appeal to cover the interrogative form as well as that used in 


228 Greek Grammar 


the illustration that I have employed in the passage just quotea 
This ‘ov-subjunctive,’ to give it its conventional name, may take 
ἄν like the ‘ov-optative.’ (How far this use of the particle with 
the ‘ov-subjunctive’ may have affected, if at all, the subjunctive in 
‘relative final clauses’ is a question that no man can answer. A 
certain amount of contamination is, of course, possible.) 

I would now draw up another pedigree, thus :— 


1 Hortative 





| | 
2 Deliberative 3 Appellative 


4 ov-subjunctive 
(4° ov-subjunctive with ἄν) 





5 Indirect De- 6 Final “ pure” 
liberative 


7 Final “ mixed” 

The theory that I have abandoned would derive the subjunctive in 

the clause dependent on οὐκ ἔστιν (οὐκ ἔστι po, οὐκ ἔχω: for 
‘so I would evolve the common form of the introductory sentence) 

from 7; the theory of Mr Hale accepted by Mr Goodwin would 
derive it from 5; the theory held here and in the Transactions for 
1895, would derive it from 4. I may add, without in any way aban- 

doning my position, that the persistence in Attic Greek of this 
derivative of 4 at the expense of the derivative of 4b (with ἄν) may 
be explained by the formal influence of 5 upon 4. 

Though Mr Goodwin has not in the paper that I have just ex- 
amined treated the optative without ἄν in relative clauses dependent 
upon οὐκ ἐστὶν and οὐκ ἔχω in the present, I may add that it 
follows as a corollary from the theory just set forth in respect of 
the subjunctive that this remarkable optative in Attic Greek is a 
survival of the od-optative. The noteworthy sequence marks it as 
archaic and archaistic. 


A SUGGESTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
GREEK OPTATIVE.? 


The term ‘potential’ as applied to the optative with ἄν is elastic, 
? [From the Classical Review, Vol. XIV (1900), pp. 122-123.] 








The Development of the Optative 229 


not to say vague. Strictly speaking, one may venture to think, it 
should be applied only to that phase of the optative with ἄν which 
is equivalent to the optative of δύνασθαι with ἄν and the infinitive 
of the verb in question (Avoyu ἄν == δυναίμην ἂν λύειν. Besides 
this the optative with ay has often a plain desiderative, or 
inclinative force, being then equivalent to the optative of βούλεσθαι 
(or ἐθέλειν) with ἄν and the infinitive of the verb in question, or 
to itself plus ἡδέως (λύοιμι dv = βουλοίμην ἂν λύειν, Or ἡδέως Gv λύοιμι). 
In other cases a condition, more or less formally expressed, 
is emphasised, and the optative may be termed ‘conditional’ 
or ‘contingent.’ This use seems readily derivable from 
the desiderative, or inclinational, use. (Cf. Eng. ‘would.’) The 
optative of polite request ( λέγοις dy) seems to have similar 
affinities, though it differs from the optative of inclination, in that 
the inclination or desire is that of the speaker, not that of the sub- 
ject of the verbal form. The change from the first to the second 
person, as well as linguistic parsimony, is responsible for this shift. 
Thus λέγοις ἄν = βουλοίμην ἄν σε λέγειν, Or καθ᾽ ἡδονὴν ἄν μοι λέγοις. 
(One thinks here of Sophocles Ant. 70, where ἀσμένης would 
certainly be an improvement on ἡδέως, though ἡδέως may be 
from Sophocles’ hand.) 

These several uses of the optative with ἄν, which correspond 
to older optatives without dy (ov-optatives) in the same senses, 
are, I venture to think, derivable from certain uses of the py- 
optative. This does not, of course, imply dissent from the view 
that the differentiation of the py-optative and the ov-optative in 
Greek is proethnic; it means merely that one can trace the process 
of differentiation in Greek forms alone. (See my remarks on the 
subjunctive and optative in ‘Some Remarks on the Moods of Will 
in Greek.') 

The precative use of the optative may well be taken as its most 
primitive use. It will appear on a moment’s consideration that this 
belongs primarily to only two persons, the first and the third. Thus, 
λάβοιμι (μὴ λάβοιμι) = δός μοι λαβεῖν (δός por μὴ λαβεῖν) and λάβοι (μὴ 
λάβοι) --- δός (μοι) αὐτὸν λαβεῖν (μὴ λαβεῖν). Thus prayer for oneself 
and prayer for another are expressed. 

The answer to such prayers may conceivably be expressed by 


* [See above, p. 219.] 


230 Greek Grammar 


λάβοις (od λάβοις) = δίδωμί σοι λαβεῖν (οὐ δίδωμί σοι λαβεῖν) and λάβοι (ov 
λάβοι). The reflex (the answer to the prayer as reported by the re- 
cipient of such answer) would take the forms λάβοιμι (od λάβοιμι) and 
λάβοι (οὐ λάβοι), or in the latter case, if addressed to the person for 
whom the prayer had been offered, λάβοις (οὐ λάβοις). 

The desiderative use of the optative—dAvoiu (οὐ λύοιμι) = βούλομαι 
(οὐ βούλομαι) Aver—will naturally appear (like the future) in all persons. 
(The peculiar turn given to the second person of the av-optative has 
been discussed above). Here we have the origin of the optative of 
inclination in what might be called a secularised prayer. 

The reflex of the precative mentioned above—AdBouu (οὐ AdBoup)— 
may be regarded as an expression of ability (or inability). Thus 
λάβοιμι (οὐ λάβοιμι) = δύναμαι λαβεῖν (οὐ δύναμαι λαβεῖν). Here we have 
the potential optative in the narrower sense indicated above. 

The forms βουλοίμην (ἄν) λαβεῖν --- λάβοιμι (av) and δυναίμην (ἂν) 
λαβεῖν --- λάβοιμι ἄν, instead of βούλομαι λαβεῖν and δύναμαι λαβεῖν Show 
a natural assimilation. In Attic Greek βούλομαι λαβεῖν and δύναμαι 
λαβεῖν represent rather λήψομαι. 


ANALECTA.? 


Analecta as a book title means “crumbs swept up” (the title that 
the late T. DeWitt Talmage once gave to a volume of essays). Any- 
one that chooses to refer to Dr. Murray’s English Dictionary will 
find that the word appears in English in the form analects (defined 
“crumbs which fall from the table”) as early as 1623. But if one 
look up analecta in Lewis and Short or the new Thesaurus, he will 
be informed that the word is a masculine noun Latinised from 
ἀναλέκτης and that it was the peculiar name of the slave that per- 
formed the office described in Hor. S. 2. 8, 11 sq. But if one will 
refer to Forcellini or Jesner, he will find a neuter analecta and may 
anticipate the brief history that I am about to give of the word as 
a modern book title. 

Martial 7. 20, 16 sq. read with a pause after analecta in 16 instead 
of before it (so that the sense of the verse was supposed to be 
analecta et quidquid canes reliquerunt instead of quidquid analecta 
et canes reliquerunt) combined with Martial 14.81, Scopae, read 
according to the false text sed pretium Scopis nunc analecta dabunt 


1 [From the Latin Leaflet; Vol. V (1904), No. 104.] 


NEPO 231 


instead of otia sed scopis nunc analecta dedit )—these passages were 
the fons et origo malorum. On the basis of them, supposed to con- 
tain analecta in the sense “crumbs swept up’’, some person at present 
unknown to me at some time prior to the year 1623 (as we have 
already seen) used analecta as or in the title of a book. I should 
like, as a matter of curiosity, to know who that person was; and 
if any reader of these words can tell me, I shall be grateful. What 
I am writing is thus, in a sense, an advertisement for a missing 
person. 

It may perhaps be worth while to mention in conclusion that the 
term analecta has been Germanised as Analekten (Wolf’s Littera- 
rische Analekten should be familiar to the reader), that this form 
is interpreted in Sander’s Dictionary by Lesefriichte, and that the 
well-known author of the Analecta Euripidea has also published 
certain philological crumbs under the title Lesefriichte. 


NEPO.? 


In expressing my agreement with Mr. Leaf’s view as to the 
derivation of νερό (Class. Rev., July 1891), I am glad to be able 
to supply certain information in regard to Romaic the accessibility 
of which he seems to doubt. That ‘e is often used for the sound I’ 
is stated by Sophocles (Romaic Grammar, ὃ 27, 6) and is well 
known to any one who has been much in Greece. It will be found 
to occur in combination with a liquid, generally a following p, as in 
yepvaw, aor. ἐγέρασα (γηράσκω), σίδερο (σίδηρος), θεριό (θηρίον), κερί (κηρίον), 
μερί (μηρίον, Sophocles, of. εἴΐ., vocabulary), μάγερας (μάγειρος), κερνῶ 
(κιρνῶ, Soph.), σέρνω (σύρνω, σύρω, Soph.); sometimes a preceding p 
as in γκρεμνός (κρημνός) and γκρεμνίζω ; κρένω (κρίνω == ἀποκρίνομαι : “Τῆς 
κρένω, δὲ μοῦ κρένει, in a popular song, quoted by Byzantios, Λεξικὸν 
τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς Ἑλληνικῆς Διαλέκτου), and perhaps in Bapaivw (Bapive, 
Soph.); sometimes a preceding A, as in πλένω (πλύνω). The only in- 
stance I can recall of this change, or retention of an older pronun- 
ciation as it were better called in most cases, not in combination with 
p or A, occurs in δεμοσ vd (δημοσία ὁδός), quoted to me in Greece as a 
curiosity. Toreturn to νερό : it may be added that the derivation from 
νηρόν is supported by the form Νεράϊδες. After all, the question is 
very largely one of orthography. Mr. Leaf will, I trust; feel in- 


1 [From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), p. 73-] 








232 Greek Grammar 





vehicle of literature, and especially if he will consult the very 
ful, though incomplete presentation of the spoken di 
first part of Kondyles’ 
Athens, 1888. 


THREE NOTES.ON GREEK ΒΕΜΑΘΒΙΟΙΟΟΘΥ 3 


(1) When substantives in -rpov properly denote the instrument 
of action of the verbs from which they are derived, why are μήνυτρον 
and other substantives in -rpov used to express the money paid, 
for performing the action? I believe the solution to be as follows: 

The very common substantive λύτρον meant properly the instru- 
ment or means of loosing ( λύσεως ὄργανον). But the means of 
loosing was a sum of money paid by the ransomer to the captor 
(λύσεως μισθός ); and this connotational meaning of the suffix in 
λύτρον ---α word of vastly common occurrence, it should be insisted 
on, in the frequent wars of the Greeks—could easily give rise to 
such words as μήνυτρον, meaning not μηνύσεως ὄργανον, but μηνύσεως 
μισθός. 

(2) A second matter of Semasiology that I would notice here 
is the connotational meaning of the adjectives in -txés, which 
frequently mean, not pertaining to such and such a person or thing, 
but skilled in something. This secondary meaning was, I believe, 
reflected, so to say, upon these adjectives from their very common 
substantivised form. The whole process may be simply and clearly 
put in the following scheme involving two adjectives in -ἰκός of 
the same form, but with a difference of meaning: ἰατρός medicus, 
ἰατρικός medicinus, ἰατρική (τέχνη) medicina (ars), ἰατρικός medicinae 
peritus. 

(3) The third point that I would call attention to here, is the 
secondary meaning of certain verbs in -Leav—a meaning which 
explains the disparaging force that we meet with in some verbs 
in -iev. This is due to a latent reflexive pronoun. Thus 
λακωνίζειν is not to make another a Laconian but to make oneself a 
Laconian, to imitate or ape the Laconians. In the same way, it 
would appear, σοφίζειν, which properly or ordinarily meant to make 
another σοφός, could be used in the sense of making oneself σοφός, 
of aping the σοφοί, It is thus, I think (pace Platonis in Protagora), 
that we are to explain the good and bad senses of σοφιστής, ‘teacher’ 
(= διδάσκαλος) and ‘charletan’ (= τῶν σοφῶν μιμητής). 

1[From the Classical Review, Vol. XXI (1907), p. 14.] 


GREEK ARCHAEOLOGY 
A SIKYONIAN: STATUE? 


Of the mutilated marble statue found at Sikyon,? some mention 
has already been made in archaeological publications ;* but no ex- 
haustive discussion has appeared of the qualities of the work and 
the interesting questions which it suggests.* 

The statue® represents a nude youth resting upon the left leg and 
with the back of the left hand upon the hip. A considerable portion 
of the bent left arm is missing. It was carved from a separate piece 
of marble, and was attached by metal pins, as is evident from the 
seven holes, with the trace of an eighth, which appear in the verti- 
cally cut surface to which it was secured. About this arm a 
himation is draped, and it falls, from a point just below the 
shoulder, in straight folds, with a gradual increase of fullness as it 
descends. Doubtless it originally reached the base of the statue 
and served as a support. As such, it is well motived; for the sharp- 
ness of the folds shows that the fabric is of comparatively light 


*[From the American Journal of Archaeology, Series I, Vol. V. (No. 3), 
pp. 26-37.—Written by Professor Earle in 1889, when he was a member of the 
American School of Classical Studies at Athens.] 

* Supplementary Report of the Excavations (pp. 286-7). 

ὃ Seventh Annual Report Am. School, p. 46 (MERRIAM), with a cut from 
Scribner's Magazine, 1888; Journ. Hell. Studies, 1888, p. 130 (HARRISON), 

“[The plate which accompanies this article was made from a photograph 
taken by Professor C. H. Young of Columbia University. A cast of the 
statue is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.] 

*The dimensions of the statue in its present condition are as follows: 
length of face, from roots of hair to end of chin, 0.16 m.; breadth of face, 
O.II m.; measure over face from ear to ear, 0.21 m.; height of forehead, 
0.06 m.; length of nose, about 0.055 m.; length of eye, 0.03 m.; of mouth, 
0.035 m.; distance of nose from ear, 0.08 m.; tip of lobe of ear below plane 
of outer angle of eye, 0.03 m.; measure around chin and crown of head, 
0.67 m.; around head above curls, 0.56 m.; over breast from arm-pit to arm- 
pit, 0.34 m.; from throat to navel, 0.33 m.; from navel to pubes, 0.12 m.; be- 
tween hips, 0.26 m.; around waist, 0.71 m.; from shoulder to shoulder, 0.35 
m.; from back of neck to small of back, 0.40 m.; across back from arm-pit 
to arm-pit, 0.34 m. 


























A Sikyonian Statue 235 


texture, as can be gathered also from the manner in which it is held, 
the hand upon the hip supporting easily the bulk of the weight 
without the appearance, between wrist and arm-pit, of a brooch or 
clasp to help hold it, such as we find elsewhere in a somewhat 
similar conception.t Thus, the garment was practically a support, 
artistically a graceful relief to the nude figure. The statue is still 
further mutilated by the loss of the right arm from a little below 
the shoulder, the greater portion of the right leg, and somewhat less. 
of the left, with the contiguous drapery. The membrum virile, 
which was not, as very commonly,” carved separately and set in, 
is broken off; a considerable portion of the left side of the throat 
is missing, rendering restoration here necessary; and the nose is 
somewhat mutilated, as well as the curls. The head was broken 
into three large pieces,* which were still in contact. The greatest 
break comes just above the forehead, on the right side of the head, 
and may be distinguished in the photograph. The right arm was 
extended, as is shown by the direction of the remaining portion; 
the motive of this will be considered later in connection with the 
identification of the statue. The pupils of the eyes were not plas- 
tically indicated, but were painted red, and traces of the yellow 
coloring of the hair were plainly visible just after the unearthing of 
the head. 

The surface of the marble—the provenience of which I am unable 
to state—is somewhat corroded; but the fine Greek workmanship 
remains plainly evident; and the finish was most careful in all parts 
of the statue except the hair, of which more below. 

The following questions naturally suggest themselves with refer- 


*Cf. Hermes in Berlin (Verzeichniss der ant, Skulpturen, No. 196) ; brooch 
on left shoulder, left hand extended, garment (chlamys) falling around and 
below left arm; Hermes on Ephesian columna caelata (Fr.-Wotrt., 1242-3, 
Overseck, Plastik (*), τι, p. 97); sequel to preceding motive, chlamys has 
slipped from shoulder bringing brooch in bend of left arm (left hand on 
hip). In connection with this last figure, it may be mentioned that, in atti- 
tude, it corresponds very closely with the figure of an athlete in an Attic 
relief of the fourth cent. Β. c. figured in the Annali, 1862, tav. d’agg. M. (text 
by MicHae is, ib. pp. 208-16). 

*Cf. Berlin originals, Verzeichn., Nos. 258, 259 (Satyrs of “Periboétos” 
type), Fr.-Wott., No. 1578 (Eros of Centocelle), etc. 

*Two small fragments filling fractures in the curls were also found; now 
probably lost. 


236 Greek Archaeology 


ence to our statue: first, whether it represents a god or a man; 
second, if the former, what god is represented; third, what motives 
known to the history of Greek sculpture does the work embody; 
fourth, to what age of Greek sculpture is it to be referred, to what 
school, and, perchance, to what artist. 

As regards the first question, there can scarcely be a doubt that 
we have before us the statue of a god. A consideration of the 
whole form and character of the work precludes the supposition 
that the artist was elaborating portraiture of any sort. There are 
no features of actual human personality ; on the contrary, the whole 
is pervaded with the spirit of ideality. Nor can it be considered an 
ideal athlete or ephebe portrait; for neither is the muscular develop- 
ment such as to warrant this opinion, nor is the pose that of an 
athlete: one of the most characteristic features—though not ade- 
quately rendered in the photograph—is a plump fullness and a 
heavy sensuous droop about the region of the loins that show a 
far different character. The body is languid, and far more sug- 
gestive of soft, seductive ease than of the palma nobilis: in fact, 
I can find no better expression of the whole spirit and character of 
the body than the admirable words in which Overbeck’ describes 
the Praxitelean satyr-type: Zu ringen und zu kampfen oder selbst 
zu einem eilenden Botengange wiirde dieser Satyrkorper nicht tau- 
gen, fiir ihn passt nur das freie Umherstreifen, ein Tanz mit den 
Nymphen oder diese behabige Ruhe, die wir vor uns sehn und welche 
thn von oben bis unten durchdringt und selbst fiir den Arm auf die 
Hiifte einen Stiitzpunkt suchen lasst. Attention should also here 
be called to the fullness of the breasts and the distinctly feminine 
form of the shoulders, to which further reference will be made. 
It is not, however, to be assumed, from the implied comparison 
with the Praxitelean satyr, that we have before us a type inter- 
mediate between god and man. The expression of the features, 
though sensuous, is yet lofty and ideal. It is plain, then, that it is 
the statue of a god; and let us attempt to answer the question, What 
god is represented ? 

The opinion that we have here a Dionysos was broached in the 
first instance by M. Kabbadias; indeed, he made his assumption 

. before it had been demonstrated that head and torso were parts of 


* Plastik (°),01, p. 42. 


A Sikyonian Statue 237 


the same statue. To this he appears to have been led by a certain 
likeness to the so-called Ariadne head.*_ It seems proper to refer 
here to this designation, inasmuch as it was made public at the time 
in the daily Ἑφημερίς of Athens, and was followed in a brief report 
on the excavations at Sikyon, published in the New York Evening 
Post in 1888. It is also accepted as probable by Miss Harrison,? 
while Professor Merriam® left the question an open one by de- 
scribing the statue simply as “a naked male figure of pronounced 
feminine type.” Allowing this assumption to rest for the present, 
let us seek to gain firmer ground by a process of elimination. Con- 
siderable stress should be laid upon the feminine forms of our 
statue, particularly the breasts and the shoulders. Such shoulders 
appear in statues of Apollo, Dionysos, Eros, and (rarely) Hermes.* 
An identification with Hermes is to be excluded, inasmuch as there 
is not a hint of the swift messenger of the gods, nothing of the 
lightness and lithe ephebic or mellephebic vigor which characterizes 
the youthful Hermes type. Eros also must be stricken from the 
list; for there is in our statue no trace of wings, which are required 
in an Eros,° to say nothing of the greater boyishness of most of 
the types of Eros. 

We have then to decide between Apollo and Dionysos—a task by 
no means easy. The statues of the youthful Apollo exhibit a boy 


*See Fr.-Wott., No. 1490, for data in regard to this head. 

* Journ. Hell, Stud., ut supra. 

ὁ Seventh Ann. Report Am. School, ut supra. 

“Cf. the Florence statue (Fr.-Wott., No. 1534). I am unable at present to 
give another instance. Even in this figure there is a plump firmness about the 
shoulders distinctly at variance with our statue. 

*On this question, see FurtTwANcLER (ap. Roscuer, art. Eros, Ὁ. 1350): Von 
Anfang an erscheint Eros als Knabe oder Mellephebe gebildet und mit Fliigeln 
ausgeristet, Particularly also the following: Ungefliigelte Bildung des Eros 
ist nirgends als beabsichtigt, sondern nur aus Nachlissigkeit erstanden und 
zwar namentlich in spatromischer Zeit zu konstatieren, wo man die ΕἸ σοὶ 
bei bekannten Typen zuweilen auch an Statuen aus Bequemlichkeit wegliess 
(1. c., p. 1369). We have, of course, in the present instance nothing either 
nachlassig or spitrémische; as wingless, may be mentioned the St. Peters- 
burg torso (FR.-W., 217), a replica of the same original as the Sparta torso 
(Fr.-W., No. 218), which latter shows evident traces of wings. Cf. also the 
wingless group in Berlin (Verz. 150) to which the designation Eros und 
Psyche(?) is given and favored, obwohl das iibrigens nicht gerade uner- 
lissliche Abzeichen der Fligel den Figuren fehlt. 


238 Greek Archaeology 


of graceful and agile form, with an inherent capacity for action, as 
in the Sauroktonos.t On the contrary, we find in our statue an 
inertia, a fleshiness about the body, not marked enough to be in any 
wise gross, and yet plainly and skilfully suggested. We have this 
much, then, to urge in favor of the identification with Dionysos; and 
we can find still further support for it. The statue was found in 
the theatre, which was consecrated to Dionysos, who had moreover 
at Sikyon a temple in the immediate vicinity—pera τὸ θέατρον, in the 
words of Pausanias. This argument, while of some value as cor- 
roborative testimony, is worth but little per se, for we find a statue 
of Apollo in the great theatre of Dionysos at Athens.’ 

But it may here be urged, in favor of the identification as Apollo, 
that the face of our statue has an expression too lofty and intel- 
lectual for the youthful Dionysos. This objection may be satis- 
factorily answered, if we consider on what it chiefly rests, namely, 
the high forehead. For the mouth, though not broad as in Satyr- 
faces, will be found full and sensuous, while the cheeks and chin 
sink so softly into the unusually full throat that the uncommon 
heaviness here strikes one immediately when the statue is viewed 
in profile. Furthermore, a high forehead is precisely what we find 
in Seilenoi and Satyrs;* and the apparent lowness of the brow in 
many statues of Dionysos is due to the arrangement of the hair or 
to the head-band across the upper part of the forehead, while the 


* Cf. BAUMEISTER, Denkmal., s. v. Apollon, Ὁ. 95 sqq.; especially p. 98, where 
we read: Die grosse Menge ie sonst erhaltenen Apollonstatuen geben den 
Charakter wieder, welchen Praxiteles seinem Sauroktonos aufgepragt hatte: 
eines Epheben von schlanker Bildung, Kraft und Zartheit der Glieder vereini- 
gend, zwischen Hermes und Dionysos die Mitte haltend. Cf. the remark of 
FURTWANGLER (ap. RoscHER, p. 467): Die Kérperformen [des Apoll] sind 
regelmassig sehr jugendlich und weich. oft denen des Dionysos sich nahrend. 
I am well aware that it is frequently difficult to distinguish mutilated statues 
of Dionysos from those of Apollo, and the attempted restorations are fre- 
quently dubious: cf. Brunn, Beschreib. der Glyptothek, Nos. 97, 103. Ex- 
amples might be multiplied. 

*Cf. on this subject ScHREIBER (Mittheilungen Athen., 1x. p. 248), whole 
arguments against Waldstein’s athlete hypothesis seem convincing. He would 
make the familiar Athenian figure an original by Kallimachos the κατατηξίτεχνος 
The statue, according to him, ig that of Apollo Daphnephoros, the chair of 
whose priest we find in the theatre: cf. ut supra. 

* Cf. the ἀποσκοπεύων (Fr.-W., No. 1429). The comparison of Sokrates with 
his high forehead to a Seilenos is well known. 


A Sikyonian Statue 239 


height of forehead is noticeable only in those statues of Apollo 
which exhibit some such arrangement of hair about the face as in 
our figure. We have, also, a noteworthy instance of a sweet 
femininity and quite as much intellectuality in a head in the Berlin 
Museum,? which was at first, like the Sikyonian, assumed to be 
that of a female, but has been unhesitatingly declared to be a 
Dionysos by an authority so competent as Furtwangler. 

We have next to consider what Greek sculptural motives the 
statue embodies: (1) the general pose of the body and legs; (2) 
the evident motive of the left arm; (3) the probable motive of the 
lost right arm; (4) the head and arrangement of hair. 

As regards the pose, we observe that the weight of the body rests 
on the left leg, and that there is a corresponding graceful sway in 
the hips and loins. As is admitted, on the testimony of Pliny? 
and the evidence of replicas of the Doryphoros and other statues, 
Polykleitos was the first to introduce into Greek sculpture the dis- 
tinction which is well described by the German terms Standbein 
and Spielbein—the leg on which the weight of the body rests and 
that which is free to pose in any one of several graceful attitudes. 
Praxiteles added a graceful sweep and curve of the body, giving 
to it, as a whole, a sort of S-shape. This is admirably exemplified 
in the Olympian Hermes. The Praxitelean type is at once evident 
in our Sikyonian statue, and that, too, not as a novelty but as part 
of the common stock of artistic tradition. 

Concerning the left arm there are several points to consider. The 
left hand supported on the hip is noted as a favorite motive with 
Praxiteles, though it may have had an earlier origin. It is easily 


*Cf. the so-called Ariadne head (Fr-W., No, 1490). Many statues of 
Dionysos have low brows, but the same is true of heads of Apollo: cf. the 
Belvedere and Apollino, with the high forehead (fourth century type), with 
Fr.-Wott., Nos, 222-4. 

*Verz., No. 118; FurtTwAncier, Sammlung Sabourof, Tafel xxut. Ge- 
funden zu Athen beim Lykabettos. Hihe 0,24. Gesichtslinge 0,12—Pente- 
lischer Marmor (FurtwAncter, /. c., Note 1 under text). The marked fem- 
ininity of the face, the sweetness of expression and the high forehead are 
points of comparison with our statue which at once struck me. Wir haben 
hier, says Furtwangler, einen ganz unversehrten, etwas unterlebensgrossen 
Dionysoskopf vor uns, der aus einem attischen Atelier der Zeit des Praxiteles 
selbst stammt. 

*HN, xxxiv. 56; cf. Oversecx, Schriftquellen, No. 967. 


240 Greek Archaeology 


demonstrable that the resting of the left hand on the hip may be so 
motived as to express more than one artistic idea. Let us take, 
for example, a satyr-statue of the Periboétos type (e. g., Berlin 
originals Nos. 258, 259; Overbeck, Plastik), τι, p. 41). Here we 
see the back of the left hand resting softly against the side, rather 
below the hip: this, together with the graceful and delicate pose of 
the whole figure, may fairly be considered as.the fully developed 
Praxitelean motive. This is essentially the position of the hand 
in our Sikyonian statue, though here there is a fuller and firmer 
resting of the back of the hand against the side, which, in a draped 
statue of an elderly man, would give an air of dignified composure. 
If the motive were that in which the back of the hand is turned 
outward and the knuckles rest firmly against the side, there would 
be a greater sturdiness, a certain holding of force in reserve, par- 
ticularly when accompanied by a firmer pose of the whole body.* 
The same may be said of the position of the hand with the fingers 
extended forward, the thumb behind, to us perhaps the most com- 
mon and natural of these attitudes. 

It is essential here to give in historical sequence a brief list of 
instances of the left hand supported against the side more or less 
in the manner of the Sikyonian statue. From the Parthenon we 
have the following: (1) Standing semi-draped male figure on 
w. frieze (Michaelis, 9. 1. 1); in which the left hand rests rather 
below and somewhat behind hip: cf. Carrey’s drawing ap. Michaelis. 
(2) Standing male figure on Ε. frieze (Michaelis, 14, m1, 19), back 
of left hand on hip, staff under right arm, also draped. Together 
with these may be grouped a number of Attic reliefs in which the 
traces of Pheidian art are evident. I give the numbering of the 
casts ap. Friederichs-Wolters. (3) Standing figure of Asklepios 
(Fr.-W., No. 1070), the familiar draped type resting on staff with 
left hand concealed in garment and supported on hip. Such figures 


*It is instructive to observe the effect of the supporting of the right hand 
upon the side (in the instance about to be cited, fingers outward in plain 
view, thumb behind) in the figure of Pelops from the east pediment of the 
temple of Zeus at Olympia. Cf. Fr.-W., p. 125: Nicht ohne Absicht scheint 
fiir ihn der Kiinstler die «selbstbewusste, fast trotzige Haltung gewahlt zu 
haben: den Kopf etwas zuriickgeworfen, die Hand in die Seite gestemmt, 
steht er seines Sieges bewusst da. A somewhat similar attitude in a nude 
Poseidon statuette is described (Fr.-W., No. 1763) as mehr energisch als stolz, 


A Sikyonian Statue 241 


have a close likeness to that cited above from the rE. frieze of the 
Parthenon. As Overbeck (Plastik), 1, pp. 274, 279) has no 
hesitation in deriving the seated statues of Asklepios (cult-statues), 
whether through Alkamenes or Kolotes, from the Zeus of Pheidias ; 
sO we may claim the standing figures of Asklepios on the reliefs as 
Attic and Pheidian, in view particularly of the Parthenon figure 
alluded to above. Similar figures are Fr.-Wolt., Nos. 1085, 1196. 
It is not always possible to determine whether the back of the hand 
rests on the hip or whether the doubled hand holding a portion of 
the robe rests the knuckles upon the hip. This latter posture in 
connection with a more erect position of body, necessitating the 
firmer holding of the robe, is expressive of sturdier dignity. This 
position of the hand we have clearly in the Berlin statue Verzeich., 
No. 71, and apparently in the fine statue of Sophokles in the Lateran 
(Fr.-Wolt., No. 1307). For left hand on hip, cf., also, Fr.-Wolt., 
Nos. 1085, 1147, 1150, 1151, 1161, 1195, 1196, 1445. To these 
should be added, as Praxitelean, the Periboétos satyrs (e. g., Berlin 
Verz., Nos. 258, 259); the Hermes of the columna caelata (Over- 
beck, Plastik(*), 11, 97; Fr.-Wolt., Nos. 1242-3); an athlete in an 
Athenian relief previously cited (Amnnali, 1862, tav. M). An ar- 
chaistic Hermes on the “Altar of the Twelve Gods” in the Louvre 
(Fr.-Wolt., No. 422) stands stiffly with left hand on hip. A stand- 
ing figure of Ammon from Pergamon may be added—a. draped 
figure with left hand on hip, reminding one strongly of Attic work. 

In the preceding list we have either Attic works or at least Attic 
types. Since it appears already in Pheidian art, it is plain that the 
motive in question in its more general aspect cannot be called Praxi- 
telean; but there seems no just ground for refusing it this title, 
when it appears as developed in the more restricted type of the 
fourth century, and as applied to nude or nearly nude youthful male 
statues. 

As regards the right arm, it is evident from the remaining portion 
that it was at least somewhat extended; and, in consonance with 
the rest of the figure, it may most readily be assumed that it was 
supported upon an object of some height. If the figure is Dionysos, 
this object may with great probability have been the familiar 
thyrsus. An interesting comparison may here be made between 


*Cf. Fr.-Wo t., pp. 327, 328, for some remarks on the connection between 
such reliefs from Parthenon and other sculptures. 


242 Greek Archaeology 


our statue and a relief on one side of a white marble disk in Berlin 
(Verz., No. 1042), found at Gabii, thus described: in flacherem 
Relief und fliichtiger ausgefiihrt die stehende Figur des jungen 
Dionysos in Chiton [?] und Umwurf [Himation], auf einen Stab 
(Thyrsos) gelehnt; auf Felsen neben thm brennt eine Flamme. 
Rémische Arbeit. The figure looks toward the spectator’s right 
and somewhat downward; the left hand is supported on the 
hip, the hair seems to be gathered in a knot on the back of the neck, 
the right arm is bent sharply at the elbow and the hand, held high, 
grasps the thyrsus; the weight of the body rests on the left leg, the. 
right is bent in the same manner as the left leg of the Ephesian 
Hermes. The points in common with the Sikyonian statue are the 
following: (1) left hand on hip; (2) weight on left leg; (3) right 
arm raised; (4) garment (himation) over left arm—although in 
the disk figure it is draped over the left shoulder, and, leaving the 
left elbow bare, falls in front of the left arm as far as the knee, 
being then brought around behind the figure and looped from before 
over the bent right arm. It seems not improbable that the Roman 
disk figure goes back to a much earlier Greek original; and one is 
reminded of the Dionysos by Eutychides in the house of Asinius 
Pollio.1 The comparison affords us, at all events, an interesting 
parallel; and, aside from this, the thyrsus seems the most natural 
explanation for the position of the right arm in our statue. 

As regards the position of the head, I fancied I could detect, in 
the inclination toward the right with the gaze turned toward the 
left, something borrowed from the Alexander type, which is un- 
doubtedly due to Lysippos.2 But if there is just reason for this 
conjecture, the motive is here merely hinted at; it is already an 
artistic commonplace of the post-Lysippian epoch. But we have 
particularly to notice the free handling of the hair, reminding in a 
measure of the heads of Alexander, in which we have, as in the 
Sikyonian statue, a simple arrangement of the locks, which are 
drawn down from the crown of the head and curl freely upward 
over the forehead and temples, falling somewhat lower on the neck 


* OveRBECK, Plastik (*), τι, 135. 

? On this subject, cf. BAUMEISTER, Denkm., s.v., Alexandros, and particularly 
Emerson in Am. Journ. Arch., vol. τι, pp. 408-13; vol.11, pp. 243-60.Cf. Ονεκ- 
BECK, Plastik (*), 11, p. 110 sqq., in regard to portraits of Alexander by Lysip- 
pos. 


A Sikyonian Statue 243 


behind.t This, so far as I am aware, we do not observe in the 
Praxitelean types and can hardly date earlier than Lysippos, to 
whom, indeed, it seems attributable. It is the germ of the treat- 
ment in later types, such as the Pergamene figures, where we see 
the hair, as in the Laocoén and the busts of Zeus, rising in a sort 
of halo about the head and face. The conception of this arrange- 
ment may, of course, be sought earlier. We have, in a diskobolos 
of Attic type? and in the Eubuleus of Praxiteles, ephebic figures 
in which the short hair is secured simply by a band or fillet, in 
strong contrast with the Attic krobylos* in vogue till the middle of 
the fifth century B. c., though scarcely appearing on the Parthenon.* 
In our statue, the hair behind and above the line of curls exhibits 
very rough and superficial workmanship, and was evidently not 
intended to be seen. We observe, also, the great fullness of this 
portion of the head, more noticeable in profile. Taking this in 
connection with the presence of a number of holes in the marble 
above the line of the curls, we may conclude that the head had some 
sort of decoration, which concealed the unfinished upper portion. 
We observe the same workmanship in other statues with a similar 
arrangement of hair about the face and with indubitable traces of 
wreaths.* What more natural, then, than to suppose, about the 
head of our statue, an ivy-wreath of bronze, with broad, full leaves? 

The height of the forehead, as already shown, though not neces- 
sarily conflicting, yet seems unusual in a Dionysos. Furtwangler, 
in his excellent notice of the Berlin head, already referred to,° 
says that it can be none other than that of Dionysos on account of 
the fillet in the hair which touches the middle of the forehead and 
there conceals the roots of the hair—a characteristic of Dionysos. 
Die gewéhnliche Binde, he continues, wurde bekanntlich viel weiter 


*We see this, also, in the Monte Cavallo colossi, which exhibit traces of 
Lysippian influence. 

? Fr.-Wott., No. 465; Overseck, Plastik (*), 1, p. 276. 

*Scureier, Mittheil. Inst. Athen., vit, p. 246f. 

“ΟἹ Mittheil. Inst. Athen., vim, Ὁ. 262, a figure in der Gruppe der schénen 
Greise, der Thallophoren. 

ΟΠ. Fr.-Wort., No. 1283 (Asklepios?) for arrangement of hair, for 
high forehead, and for a certain community of expression (6. g., similarity of 
mouth) with our statue, though No. 1283 is bearded. It may be added that 
the fullness of the back of the head is far more Praxitelean than Lysippian. 

*Sammlung Sabouroff, text to Taf. xxut. 


244 Greek Archaeology 


hinten im Haare getragen. In Glterer Zeit tragt Dionysos ganz 
regelmassig den Epheukranz um das Haupt und dieser scheint auch 
unserem Kopfe nicht gefehlt zu haben; eine schrage Rethe kleiner 
Locher hinter dem Vorderhaar (darin z. Th. noch Reste eiserner 
Stifte) zeugen davon, dass ein solcher aus Metallblattern angesetzt 
war. Here we have something parallel to our statue. From the 
end of the fifth century there appears in figures of Dionysos, besides 
the wreath or instead of it, a broad fillet, like that previously de- 
scribed, above the middle of the forehead. This arrangement, 
derived from the symposial habits of the time and explained by 
Diodorus Siculus (αν. 4.4), was adopted as a peculiar attribute of 
Dionysos, and from it he derived the epithet μιτρηφόρος. This fillet, 
originally separate from the wreath, as we see it in the Berlin head, 
was later for the most part adorned with ivy-leaves and ivy-berries, 
and came to form an integral part of the wreath (mit dem Kranze 
zu einem Ganzen verbunden). Such an arrangement is common 
in terracottas of Asia Minor and marbles of the Roman period. 
Can we now assume any such arrangement in the case of our statue? 
That the fillet was not indicated in the marble is at once evident; 
and without a cast it is impossible to state whether it might have 
been formed in metal and connected with the wreath. It is worthy 
of note, and plain in the photograph, that the hair immediately over 
the forehead is, near its roots, in noticeably lower relief than the 
waving locks which rise above it, and that, in the depressions of the 
curls at either side, a metal fillet might have rested with the wreath. 
This point, however, cannot at present be fully settled. 

Before leaving this subject, I must again call attention to the 
paper of Furtwangler which has been previously quoted. He has 
summed up and characterized the features of the Berlin head in 
words which apply in great part to our statue, as well, although 
the eye is here not so deeply set. The breadth of the root of the 
nose is certainly noticeable; and we have also the same peculiar 
fullness of the chin and throat, which in our statue is even more 
marked than in the Berlin head. 

The epoch and school to which our statue belongs will now be 
considered. As we have seen, it has in it no elements earlier than 
Praxiteles, while the treatment of the hair and perhaps the position 
of the head are rather Lysippian. We must, indeed, admit that a 


A Sikyonian Statue 245 


distinctively Sikyonian element in the work cannot be proved to 
any marked extent, and it is certainly not in any way strongly 
Lysippian. It partakes rather of the character of a generalized 
post-Alexandrine or Hellenistic art. At the same time, we see in 
it no trace of the over-wrought pathos of the Pergamene and 
Rhodian schools, or of the archaistic tendencies of Pasiteles. These 
considerations will weigh in approximating the date of the work, 
particularly if we bear in mind that all its characteristics appear as 
fixed artistic elements and in no wise as inventions. That the work 
is Sikyonian is unquestionable. 

The later history of Sikyonian sculpture is known to us through 
scattered references, especially in Pliny. Inscriptions also have of 
late come most serviceably to our aid. According to Pliny, Greek 
sculpture fell into decay after the time of Lysippos and his immedi- 
ate successors, to revive again in Ol. civi. As has already been 
said, we have in our statue nothing of this ars renata, as it is known 
to us in the later schools. It must then be attributed to one of the 
successors of Lysippos; and, as we can trace no strong Lysippian 
elements in it, to some artist not under the immediate sway of the 
master—to one who displayed a spirit rather pan-Hellenic than 
Sikyonian. 

So far as we can estimate on the data of Pliny, the activity of 
the artists named as followers of Lysippos must have continued 
into the latter portion of the third century Β. c. Our knowledge 
on this subject may be resumed as follows—The pupils of Lysippos, 
who according to Pliny flourished Ol. cx1,1 were Daippos, Boedas, 
Euthykrates son of Lysippos, Phanis, Eutychides, Chares of 
Lindos,* of whom Eutychides and Daippos, on the same authority,’ 
flourished Ol. cxxt1, i. ¢., about a generation later than their master. 
Euthykrates had a disciple Teisikrates,t while Xenokrates is men- 
tioned as disciple of either Euthykrates or Teisikrates.° From 
Pausanias, we learn that Eutychides had a disciple Kantharos, a 
Sikyonian.© Furthermore, the inscriptions collected by Lowy 


ΤΗΝ, xxxiv. 51; Overseck, Schriftquellen, No. 1443. 
* Cf. Overseck, Schriftquellen, No. 1516. 

*HN, |. c. 

* HN, xxxiv. 67. 

ΗΝ, xxxiv. 83. 

*Paus., vi. 3. 6. 


246 Greek Archaeology 


(Inschr. gr. Bildhauer) show that the Sikyonian Thoinias son of 
Teisikrates was the son and disciple of Teisikrates son of Thoinias. 
The name of this Thoinias son of Teisikrates, moreover, occurs in 
the Sikyonian inscription No. 2, published above,’ and assigned to 
the second half of the third century B. c. 

Starting from Lysippos,? we may draw up the following artistic 
genealogy: 








Lysippos 
| 
| | | ie ae | 
Daippos Boedas Euthykrates Phanis Eutychides Charsso 
ἢ. ΟΣ CXXI son of ὙΡΟΣ fl: Ol. Cxx1 of Linde 
| 
Kantharos 
Xenokrates Teisikrates of Sikyon 


son of Thoinias 
fl. Ol. CXV-CXXIV ? 


Thoinias 
son of Teisikrates 
in inscr. at Sikyon 
circa 240 B. C, 


From the date assigned to the above-mentioned Sikyonian inscrip- 
tion, we may conclude that Teisikrates son of Thoinias flourished 
about Ol. cxxvitI-1x, and that Thoinias his son continued his 
activity to about Ol. cxxxvi. But, according to Pliny (HAN, 
XXXIV. 52), between the time of Eutychides and Ol. cLv1 cessavit 
ars; so that Thoinias may be reckoned among the last of Lysippos’ 
successors. : 

Hence, we may say so much:—First; we have a statue of the 
youthful Dionysos, of good workmanship, a product of Sikyonian 
art: second; we may assign this work, on grounds of Greek art- 
history, presumably, to the third century B. c. and to one of the 
more distant followers of Lysippos: third; we know that Thoinias 
son of Teisikrates was active at Sikyon and elsewhere in the Greek 
world in the middle and latter half of the third century 8. c.: fourth; 
we have in our work a certain pan-Hellenistic spirit, such as we 
may apprehend could have been exhibited by Thoinias. 


*[See below, article entitled New Sikyonian Inscriptions.] 
*'Who was αὐτοδίδακτος, according to PLiny, HN, xxxIv. 61. 


A NEW SIKYONIAN INSCRIPTION. 


A 19 νὴ ᾿ς δίων 

Κ Av ΔΙ Καλλέί[ζων 
Mov ς © Μοῦσος 

Δ Ι Ἁρμόδιος 

Γ Ἑράσιππ[|Ίος 
Ν Αἰσχίν α[ς- 

ζ ἘΠ © Κ ' ᾿Αριστοκ[λῆς" 


In December 1887, while I was residing at Kiato, the chief town 
( πρωτεύουσα ) of the modern deme of Sikyon, during the progress 
of the excavations at the old theatre of Sikyon, an Albanian peasant 
named Georgios Agrapedakes told me that some blocks of stone 
containing παλαιὰ γράμματα had been found in a field belonging to 
him in the village of Moulki* On December 18, I went up to 
Moulki in company with my friend Dr. Eustathios Tournakes of 
Kiato, and there we found two blocks of stone, said to have been 
dug up some three years previously. On one of these the inscrip- 
tion, of which a facsimile is given above, was quite plainly legible. 


*[From the American Journal of Archaeology, Series 1, Vol. 1v, No. 4, 
(1888), pp. 427-430.] 

* These names are all to be found in Pape. Only two are cited as borne by 
Sikyonians, Aischines (PLut., De Her. mal., 21) and Aristokles (PAus., v1. 
9. I; vi. 3. 11). A Mousos is mentioned (PaAus., v. 24. 1; OVERBECK, 
Schriftg., 2080) as the unknown artist of a statue of Zeus set up at Olympia 
by “the demos of the Corinthians.” 

®Moitlki ( Μοῦλκι ) is situated N. w. of Basilikd (the modern representative 
of the upper town of Sikyon), near the Ποτάμι τῆς Λέχοβας, the ancient 
‘EX. It undoubtedly formed part of the old city before its capture bywody 
Demetrios Poliorketes. Cf, Diopor., xx. 102. 2-4. 


248 Greek Archaeology 


The length of this block is 0.70 m.,’ the same as that of the other, 
on which there seemed to be traces of letters obliterated beyond 
the possibility of decipherment. The height of the letters them- 
selves is from 0.02 m. to 0.025 m., the former being that of the O, 
except in the first line. The stone is of a brownish color, fairly 
hard and of coarse grain. It is broken on the right-hand side, 
whence the loss of one or more letters in every word except the 
first and third. The characters, as will be noticed in the fac- 
simile, are quite neatly formed and arranged nearly στοιχηδόν. 
I made a copy of the inscription at the time, as did also Dr. Mer- 
riam, to whom I exhibited the new find before my return to Kiato; 
and, on December 22, I took a squeeze, on which the facsimile is 
chiefly based. 

I will now consider the inscription from an epigraphical stand- 
point. The reading, as given in the facsimile, is quite certain; but 
the first and sixth letters in the second name, the seventh letter in 
the fourth, and the seventh letter in the sixth are somewhat defaced. 
The inscription, when complete, was apparently as transcribed 
above. 

As regards the characters, we observe: first, the angular form 
and small size of the O, except in the first line (cf. Roehl, J. G. A., 
27a Add.) ; secondly, the four-barred sigma; thirdly, the angular 
form of the rho; fourthly, the form of the chi, as contrasted with 
that (++) of the Caere inscription (J. G. A., 22; Roberts, G. E., No. 
95); fifthly, the forms of mu and nu,? sixthly, the form ¥=e On 
this last, special stress is to be laid, as being a point of the greatest 
importance. 

That ¥—e was a form peculiar to Sikyon, is not recognized by 
Roehl, nor does Roberts lay it down as a fixed principle, while 
Kirchhoff (Stud.,4 104-5) still retains under the head of Corinth 
the inscription of the Caere vase (J. G. A., 22; Roberts, No. 95), 
in which this sign occurs four times. I shall endeavor to show that 
not only have we no proof that the sign ZX was employed in the 
Corinthian alphabet, but that, in view particularly of the present 
inscription, the first one found ipso loco containing this sign, we 

"The thickness of the block is 0.26 m.: the original width cannot be deter- 
mined. 


*Cf. I. G. A., 21, 22 (Roperts, Nos. 94, 95) with 1. G. A., 26a Add. 
(Rozerts, No. 93). 


A New Sikyonian Inscription 249 


seem warranted in assuming that it was peculiar to the Sikyonian 
alphabet, which appears to have been pretty sharply defined, and 
to have developed with considerable regularity as well as con- 
servatism. 

The fact that no inscription has been found at Corinth, or to be 
with certainty traced to Corinth, containing this form of epsilon, 
when viewed in connection with the fact that ε in the early alphabet 
of Corinth, as well as in that of her colonies, appears as B or B 
(this form being also employed for the y, and εἰ being usually 
written as ΕἾ), goes a long way toward a demonstration of non- 
existence of the form X= e in the Corinthian alphabet. The prox- 
imity of Corinth and Sikyon is nothing in favor of influence one 
way or the other; for Sikyon at least seems to have been conserva- 
tive in a very high degree. 

In this connection, we must, however, admit that too much stress 
has been laid on the peculiar local form of the name, Xexvdv. Roehl 
(1. G. A., 17) claims that the inscription scratched on a spear-head 
found at Olympia cannot be the work of a Sikyonian, because the 
early local form of the name was Σεκυών, and not Σικυών, as found 
in this case: but one is startled to find in the Addenda (27a) a 
spear-head inscription attributed to a Sikyonian, but apparently 
from the same hand as the last, in which the form Y= e occurs in 
the same word. The similarity of the two inscriptions is most 
striking, notwithstanding this variation, the same unusual pentagonal 
© occurring in each, and the forms of the other letters, carelessly 
made it is true, being essentially the same as those of 1. G. A., 17. 
One is also surprised to notice that Roehl reads 17, Σικυών, rightly 
considering the three parallel scratches at the end as a mark of 
punctuation,” while he reads 27a Add., exvwvi ( wv), taking the per- 
pendicular mark after the N—which is taller than any of the un- 
doubted letters—as |, although such a form of iota is here, to say 
the least, in the highest degree improbable. It seems to me quite 
certain that we should read, here, simply Σεκυών. The testimony 
of the coins cannot be adduced in support of any theory of a con- 
sistent local employment of the form Σεκυών in the fifth century 
at least ;* and, indeed, if the two spear-heads were engraved by the 

* Cf. Roperts, p. 134. 

? Lineola quae ad dextram exarata est, non est litterae vestiginum, sed finem 


tituli indicat. 
*Cf. Heap, Historia Numorum, p. 345. 


250 Greek Archaeology 


same hand, we find here a confirmation of what we may gather from 
the coins, namely, that the local usage was not at all stable, both 
forms being used indifferently." We are then, in my judgment, 
quite safe in numbering J. G. A., 17, among Sikyonian monuments. 

We must, therefore, guard against an assumption of over-con- 
servatism on the part of the Sikyonians, but at the same time must 
not be led to assume that their alphabet developed with the same 
rapidity as that of Corinth, a point to be emphasized in estimating 
the probable date of the inscription now under consideration. 

Roberts, who groups together the inscriptions of Corinth and its 
colonies and those of Sikyon (G. E., pp. 119-37), distinguishes three 
periods, as follows (pp. 134-5): first, that comprising the most 
primitive inscriptions, in which san, the older form of » (M), the 
crooked iota, the closed spiritus asper, the older theta, certain pecu- 
liar forms of gamma (C, 4, |), and remarkable forms to express B 
and the E-sounds (pg, B, or ΣΧ) appear; secondly, that comprising 
inscriptions “which exhibit the straight iota but retain the san” 
(p. 135); thirdly, that comprising inscriptions marked by, (1) “the 
adoption of the four-stroke sigma,” (2) “the gradual substitution 
of the open H for the closed form,” (3) “the introduction of the 
normal form for B” (p. 135). The first of these periods is to be’ 
placed as early as the sixth century B. c., the second would corre- 
spond to the earlier half of the fifth century, and the third to the 
latter half of the same century.’ 

In view of the arguments adduced in the course of the previous 
discussion, we seem justified in attributing to Sikyon both the spear- 
head inscriptions already alluded to (1. G. A., 17, and 27a Add.). 
In one of these the form 2 = appears, and in both we have san. 
These, then, are plainly older than J.G.A., 21 and 22, which belong 
to the same period and are to be assigned to the earlier half of the 
fifth century. Certainly later than these, again, is our new inscrip- 
tion, between which and those just mentioned I am in favor of 
dating J. G. A., 27¢ Add., which is, then, probably to be restored: 
SEKVONIO[N or SXKVONIO[I4 In both these last we find & 


1 Σικυώνιοι is the reading of Fabricius on the serpent-column at Constanti- 
sige (cf. Roperts. p. 259.) 
ΠΩΣ at Sicyon, at least in the 2d period.” 
*For the grounds of this chronology, which seems very satisfactory, see 
Roserts, Ὁ. 136. 
“Cf. Roeut’s remarks ad loc. 


New Sikyonian Inscriptions 251 


retained, though in the former we have alpha and kappa of later 
form than in any other early Sikyonian inscription, and even later 
than in J. G. A., 26a Add., a Corinthian inscription commemorating 
the battle of Tanagra (457 Β. c.). In the last-mentioned, however, 
we have the normal ε, and a, v, and x of the same form as in our 
new inscription. In view of the latter coincidence, as well as of 
the conservatism of the Sikyonians, we need have no hesitation in 
placing our inscription at least as late as 457 B. c., and probably 
somewhat later. In fact, I would propose the following chrono- 
logical classification of early Sikyonian inscriptions: 

I period, latter part of sixth century B. c. (1. G. A., 17 and 27a 
Add.) ; 

11 period, first half of fifth century B. c. (J. G. A., 21, 22); 

lI period, middle and latter half of fifth century B. c. (J. G. 4., 
27c Add. and the new inscription). 


NEW SIKYONIAN INSCRIPTIONS. 

(1) On the Ist August 1891, while engaged in archaeological 
investigation in the theatre of Sikyon, I had the good fortune to 
discover in the Albanian village of Basiliko, which occupies part of 
the site of Sikyon-Demetrias, the following hitherto unpublished 
inscription :— 


BAZIN E APIALPONE 
OOINTAE \TEIZIKPA 


It is inscribed on a block of black marble, built into the stairs of 
the house of Nikélaos Anagndéstou. The marble is broken at the 
right and also cracked vertically. Its dimensions are about .79m. 
in length (inscribed surface) by .51m. in breadth and .29m. in thick- 
ness. The average height of the letters is about .03m., the o being 
somewhat small in proportion to the others including the ©. The 
character is tolerably regular and slightly ornate. 

In attempting the restoration of the missing portion of this in- 
scription we begin with the second line, which may be read :— 

@owias Τεισικρά[του(ς) ἐποίησε(ν). 


*[{From the Classical Review, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 132-135.] 


252 ᾿ Greek Archaeology 


The artist here named is a member of the Tisicrates-Thoenias 
family known to us from the inscriptions collected by Loewy, 
Inschrr. gr. Bildhauer, 120-122, and from the notice of ‘Tisicrates 
Sicyonius’ in Pliny (N. H. xxxiv. 66, cited by Loewy, op. cit., sub 
120). ‘Thoenias (son) of Tisicrates’ is named in three other in- 
scriptions, Loewy 121,. 122a, ‘Inscriptions from Sikyon,’ No, 2 
(Amer. Journ. Arch., Vol. V. No. 3, where see Professor Merriam’s 
valuable note). ‘Thoenias’ (father’s name probably lost) is named, 
apparently as artist, in another inscription (Loewy 122, classed by 
Loewy with 121 and 1226), and the same name occurs again as that 
of the father of a Tisicrates (Loewy 120a). The Tisicrates of 
Sikyon, known to us from Pliny’s notice (Joc. cit.) as a pupil of 
Euthycrates and the executor of works hardly distinguishable from 
those of Lysippus, is thought to have flourished down to about 284 
B. C. (Loewy sub 120, Merriam, loc. cit.). On the basis of Loewy’s 
computations and on epigraphic grounds the Sikyonian inscription 
No. 2 (Amer. Journ. Arch., loc. cit.) in which Θοινίας Teo[ixpdrov(s) 
is given as artist, is assigned by Professor Merriam to the second 
half of the third century B. C. But in approaching more closely 
the dating of our inscription, the general character of the letters of 
which alone would assign it to the Macedonian period, we must 
now consider the upper line. 

The ‘king Philip’ on the pedestal of a statue to which the block 
bearing our inscription must have belonged, can be none other than 
Philip V., son of Demetrius, reg. 220-178 B. C. We may therefore 
reasonably read :— 

βασιλέα Φίλιππον β[ασιλέως Δημητρίου Σικυώνιοι ἀνέθεσαν. 


The intimacy of this remarkable monarch with the great Aratus 
of Sikyon, dating from the time when Antigonus on his death-bed 
sent the youthful successor to the throne of Macedonia into the 
Peloponnese to attach himself to Aratus and through him establish 
relations with the states of the Achaean League (Plutarch, Arat. 
c. 46) and continuing down to the year 215 B. C., is well known. 
Now there seems to be no other time in the long career of Philip 
when he would have been likely to be honoured with a statue at 
Sikyon except this period of his intimacy with Aratus. Indeed it 
would seem that only under the strongest of pressure would the 
Sikyonians have subsequently thus honoured the murderer of their 


New Sikyonian Inscriptions 253 


greatest statesman and his son. We may even perhaps derive data 
for a more exact chronology of our inscription from Plutarch (loc. 
cit.), who describes the result of Philip’s mission to the Peloponnese 
in these words:—Kai μέντοι καὶ παραλαβὼν αὐτὸν (Philip) ὁ “Aparos 
οὕτως διέθηκεν Gore πολλῆς μὲν εὐνοίας πρὸς αὐτὸν πολλῆς 
δὲ πρὸς τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις φιλοτιμίας καὶ ὁρμῆς μεστὸν εἰς Μακεδονίαν 
ἀποστεῖλαι. Among other things calculated to secure the good-will 
of Philip an honorary statue to him as king, even before the death 
of Antigonus, seems not impossible; indeed Plutarch’s account of 
Philip’s mission shows that Antigonus sent him as heir-apparent 
(τὸν διάδοχον τῆς βασιλείας). 

At all events there is good ground, even if we do not assign the 
statue to the period of Antigonus’s last sickness, for assuming a 
date not much, if at all, later than the year 220 B. C. 

Now the execution of a statue to the young king, being a work 
of special importance, would have been committed to no inexperi- 
enced hands, indeed most probably’to those of the veteran artist 
of Sikyon. We need therefore have no hesitation in assigning to 
Thoenias at this time an age beyond middle life. As we have seen 
above, the inferior limit of the florwit of Pliny’s Tisicrates, who is 
reasonably identified with the father of Thoenias, is placed circ. 284 
B.C. A pupil of Euthycrates (presumably after Lysippus’s death) 
who executed statues of ‘King Demetrius’ (presumably Poliorcetes, 
reg. 306-283 B. C.) and of Peucestes, and who had a son still active 
in his profession circ. 220 B. C., can hardly have been born earlier 
than 320 B. C., or later than 300 B. Ὁ. Reckoned on this basis the 
activity of Tisicrates not improbably extended considerably later 
than 284 B.C. But for our present purpose this is a matter of 
small account. The question whether Pliny’s ‘Tisicrates Sicyonius’ 
may without violence to chronology be identified with the father of 
Thoenias seems to admit of an affirmative answer. 

There is therefore no reason to reject Loewy’s identification of 
the ‘Tisicrates (son) of Thoenias’ of Inschr. gr. Bildh. 120a with 
the father of our Thoenias, or that of the Thoenias of the Delian 
inscription, op. cit. 122, with our artist himself. I have consequently 
no change to make in the genealogy of Sikyonian artists at the close 
of my article on the statue of Dionysus discovered at Sikyon (Amer. 
Journ. Arch., Vol. V. No. 3, p. 303),' except to bring down the 

1| See above, p. 246.] 


254 Greek Archaeology 


floruit of Tisicrates son of Thoenias at least four Olympiads, and 
to describe Thoenias son of Tisicrates as artist of a statue to Philip 
Vi circ:220 5. Ὁ: 

It may be added that our inscription further confirms the spelling 
of the name of Thoenias’s father Τεισικράτης, which has been 
rightly treated by Professor Merriam as the Sikyonian form. 


| 











bi A1Z ko 


















5»... πο 

(2) In an outbuilding of Gedrgios Pappadopoulos (Γεώργιος Παππα- 
δόπουλος ), on a block of πωρός .54m. wide by .26m. thick. It has 
apparently been broken from the top of a tombstone, the rest of 
which is said to remain in situ " κάτω εἰς τὸν κάμπον᾽, i. ¢. on the site 
of the older city of Sikyon. The average height of the letters is 
about .o4m. Their tips are somewhat enlarged. The o is rather 
small. There is a plain moulding at the top of the stone. 

The inscription is to be read :— 

Φιλίσκος [.. . 
χίαῖρε 

This stone is either broken sharply on the right, or else the stele 
consisted of two pieces, the latter hardly probable. 

Pausanias (ii. 7. 2) in describing the mode of interment among 
the Sikyonians says : τὸ μὲν σῶμα γῇ κρύπτουσι, λίθου δὲ ἐποικοδομήσαντες 
κρηπῖδα κίονας ἐφιστᾶσι, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐπίθημα ποιοῦσι κατὰ τοὺς ἀετοὺς 
μάλιστα τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς: ἐπίγραμμα δὲ ἄλλο μὲν ἐπιγράφουσιν͵ 
οὐδέν, τὸ δὲ ὄνομα ἐφ᾽ αὑτοῦ καὶ οὐ πατρόθεν ὑπειπόντες 
κελεύουσι τὸν νεκρὸν χαίρειν, Ζ. 6. the simple name of the de- 
ceased in the nominative, without an added genitive of the father’s 


New Sikyonian Inscriptions 255 


name, appeared upon the stone, followed by χαῖρε. (The nomina- 
tive is regular on Attic tombstones, even when, as rarely, χαῖρε 
occurs ; Cf. e.g. C.7.A. 3253: Αἰνησάρετος ᾿Ορχομένιος | χαῖρε). 

If what is here said be taken as applying to the simple στῆλαι, we 
must suppose in the case of our inscription either that χρηστός or 
another name in the nominative (in which case we should read 
χαίρετε) stood at the right of Φιλίσκος or that the χαῖρε is not 
placed symmetrically. 

The name Philiscus is not uncommon, but seems not to occur 
elsewhere as that of a Sikyonian. Vid. Pape, Lex. Gr. Eigen. 5. v. 

This inscription, if we may draw any conclusion from such 
minutiae as the form of the ¢, is somewhat earlier than the last. 











(3) On a bit of πωρός lying in the courtyard wall of Gedrgios 
Pappodépoulos. No information as to its immediate provenance. 


Height of A .035m.; of M and O .035m.; of A and X .03m. 
The form of the letters is such as we should expect in the second 
_ century B. C. or later. 

We should perhaps read: 

᾿Απολλ[ωνίδας 
χα[ῖρε 

For an Appollonidas at Sikyon, vid. Polyb. 23. 8. 

(4) In the dooryard of a certain Soteropoulos (Swrnpérovdos), 
on the upper surface (as it lay) of the drum of a Doric column of 
πωρός, near the dowel-hole. Breadth of drum .76m.; breadth of 
dowel hole .o95m.; height of letters .o6m. 


256 Greek Archaeology 


We 


»-ς 





NS 


DoweE.-HoLe 


These characters appear to be masons’ marks. For other such 
at Sikyon cf. McMurtry in Am. Journ. Arch. Vol. V. No. 3, 
Pp. 273- 

It may be questioned whether the second character represents Z 
or B (cf. the Corinthian form Z of the latter). The former seems 
clearly meant for N. 








(5) On another block of πωρός in the same place apparently from 
an architrave. Apparently AT, or TA reversed. Height of former 
character .o85m.; of latter .065. Apparently masons’ marks. The 
form of the A is noteworthy. 

The architectural fragments on which these letters are cut were 
heaped together with a number of others and are evidently the 
remains of one of the Doric temples of Sikyon. They are from 
the upper plateau, the site of Sikyon-Demetrias, but no more precise 
information about their provenance seems obtainable. 

[Accounts of the excavations carried on at Sikyon by the American School 
of Classical Studies at Athens were published by Professor Earle in the 


American Journal of Archaeology, Series I, Vol. V, No. 3; Vol. VII, No. 3, 
and Vol. VIII, No, 3.] 


THE NAMES OF THE ORIGINAL LETTERS OF THE 
GREEK ALPHABET.* 


II. From the traditional names of the Greek letters compared with 
the traditional names of the Hebrew characters we can trace pretty 
clearly the forms of the letter names as the Phoenicians transmitted 
them to the Greeks. It is important to note here what Professor 
Eduard Meyer has so well said in his Geschichte des Alterthums 
II 384 that it is a fact too commonly disregarded that ‘every alphabet 
must be considered as a whole that is disseminated by being learned 
from a teacher’ (das dadurch weiter iiberliefert wird, dass es bei 
einem Lehrer gelernt wird). But to examine the names of the 
traditional letters severally. 

Alpha comes readily from aleph or alepha. Beta, delta, zeta, 
heta, theta, iota, six names all ending in ta, can be traced to beth, 
daleth, zayin, cheth, teth, yod. In the case of the last four the 
Greek form seems clearly due to the natural tendency to assimilate 
names strung together in continuous recitation. It has been said 
that zeta owes its name in whole or in part to the sibilant that is 
lost in the Greek alphabet—tsade. The explanation that I have 
just given of the name Zeta, which is that of Mommsen (Unt. 
Dialekten) and Clermont-Ganneau, seems pretty satisfactory; but 
it is a curious fact which has not perhaps been duly noted—if, 
indeed, it be of any real value—that if the Phoenician characters 
be written from right to left in two lines of eleven characters each 


the sibilant signs fall in a regular figure (thus ἊΝ me .) in which 


the lost tsade is immediately under Zayin or Zeta. Delta, which 
should, it would seem, be dalta, may have been influenced by 
δέλτος by popular etymology. Gamma cannot, of course, have come 


1 [This article is part of a paper read at a meeting of the Archaeological Institute 
at Columbia University, December, 1901, and published in abstract in the American 
Journal of Archaeology, Series II, Vol. VI (1902), p. 46. The first part of the 
paper read was rewritten and published in full under the title “‘ The Supplementary 
Signs of the Greek Alphabet ’’, and will be found immediately following the present 
article. ] 


258 Greek Archaeology 


from gimel, but must be for gamala, gamla (so Clermont-Ganneau) 
from gamal. The form gamma would be due to the many Greek 
words (especially perhaps γράμμα) ending in -ue. It is of curious 
interest to note that the Greek names of the original gutterals 
all end in a geminated consonant followed by -«. Lambda is 
naturally the original form, not labda, and would derive readily 
from lamed, the insertion of the b (8) having its parallels in 
the familiar words ἄμβροτο and peonuBpia. In the case of 
mu, nu it is clear that the former of the forms cannot well 
represent mem. It has been pointed out that rho presupposes on 
the one hand an original rosh (not resh), on the other hand a drop- 
ping in recitation of one of the contiguous s’s in ros san. So 
here the other and older Gk. name for mu (my), viz. mo, points 
to mom nun, the former of which would become mon. The sequence 
mon nun samega (which last would be the Gk. form of samekt) 
would naturally become mo nu samega. The name of this last 
letter has commonly been traced in the Ionic sigma. Herodotus 
has been unduly censured, it seems to me, for saying that Persian 
names ended in the letter that the Dorians called San, the Ionians 
Sigma. This is as though one should say that in writing Pickwick 
Papers Dickens called himself by a name that ends with the letter 
that the English call Zed, the Americans—of the present genera- 
tion—Ze. But, however this may be, the Ionic name Sigma seems 
to me not so certainly derived from Samega. The case of the 
jumbling of the sibilants is not clearly proved. Can it be that 
sigma is after all a significant name—isolated it is true—and that 
the later name omega had its prototype in samega understood (mis- 
understood) as sammega (san mega, σὰν μέγα) When the other 
san was deemed a sufficient exponent of the sibilant and samega 
had become xei may not the one remaining simple sibilant have 
been called simply so i.e. σῖγμαὐ Ο (οὗ) instead of dva is like 
ei: thus the vowel names represent two types. (The added u ( 2) 
is conformed to the e (ei) and ο (ou) type). Pei, qoppa (koppa) and 
tau need no comment. San is to be regarded (with Professor Eduard 
Meyer) as practically the Phoenician name (shan not shin). The 
names of the supplementary Greek letters have already been suffi- 
ciently discussed.* 

III Of the Beta Signs. 

The common Greek form of beta B or B_ can be readily ex 

*[In the first part of this paper; see p 257, note 1.] 


The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 259 


plained as derived from 4 or @. Not so such forms as Theraean 
J or Corinthian m=. Lenormant’s notion that the latter form was 
a modification of the current form made after E had given birth 
to the peculiar Corinthian e sign ἘΞ seems manifestly absurd. It 
would seem that we can infer a good deal from the Theraean 5. 
In this character the ~ seems pretty clearly to be a stroke of dif- 
ferentiation. The letter from which the sign for b was to be dis- 
tinguished would, of course, be ἡ. But had the Theraeans not 
had two characters practically identical for b and p, what need for 
the stroke of differentiation? A similar use of a stroke of dif- 
ferentiation may perhaps be seen in the character°*W—=—P. Did the 
Corinthian ™ come from this? Are we justified in assuming that 
two or even three forms of beta were accepted by the Greeks at as 
many different places? that Crete, Thera and some other places 
took over a form which was variously modified to differentiate 
from the character for p, whereas most of the Greeks received 
and modified I have said “or even three forms”; for what is 
the origin of the rho with a similar stroke? Can it be a widely 
spread differentiation of a 4 —=c readily confusible with a 4 or 
@=b? There are surely important problems here. 

IV Of the Sixteen-letter Alphabet. 

In an article or rather a section of an article entitled Die Theorien 
der Alten iiber die litterae priscae des griechischen Alphabets 
(Philologus 52 [1893], pp. 373-379) W. Schmid reaches the con- 
clusion that the theory of a primitive alphabet of 16 letters seems 
to be that of a Latin grammarian (Varro?) who compared the 
Greek and the Latin alphabets and assumed the common letters 
to be primitive, thus: ABCDEIKLMNOPRSTV. With 
this should be compared the theory expounded by Professor 
Sophocles at p. 14 sq. of his History of the Greek Alphabet, Cam- 
bridge, 1848. This theory I do not remember to have met with 
_élsewhere. It is certainly very plausible—far more so than that 
of the German scholar just referred to. 


THE SUPPLEMENTARY SIGNS OF THE GREEK 
ALPHABET. 
The following remarks about the supplementary or complement- 
*{From the American Journal of Archaeology, Series II, Vol. VII (1903), 
PP- 420-444.] 


260 Greek Archaeology 


ary signs of the Greek alphabet have to do primarily with the 
letters  X Y and with the question of their “Eastern” or “Western” 
origin, arrangement, and equivalence. Discussion of these signs 
may justly begin with a paragraph near the end of Professor 
Kirchhoff’s Studien zur Geschichte des Griechischen Alphabets in 
which the question at issue is put with admirable clearness—a para- 
graph which appears in the same words in the fourth edition of the 
Studien (1887) as in the first (1863). “Since the new signs 
X¢ ¥,” says Professor Kirchhoff, “notwithstanding their (in part) 
fundamental difference of signification and their varying arrange- 
ment, are yet in both groups [ἡ. e. in the “Eastern” and in the 
“Western” alphabet] obviously identical in form, and since this 
cannot possibly be the result of accident, we must assume that they 
were invented, if not contemporaneously, as it should seem, at all 
events at one and the same place, from whence they were dis-_ 
seminated. Consequently, since we cannot attribute to those that 
were used with different values a double signification from the very 
beginning, one of these significations is the original; the other, that 
which arose later by arbitrary alteration. Furthermore, since the 
varying sequence of the Φ and X in the alphabets of the [two] 
several groups stands plainly in a causal connection with this change 
of signification of the X, this variation too can only be explained 
on the assumption that the one arrangement is to be regarded as 
the original ; the other, as the altered and secondary. The problem 
reduces itself to this: Which of the two groups is to be held to 
represent more faithfully the original condition, the Eastern or the 
Western ?””} 


*Da nun die neuen Zeichen XY trotz ihrer zum Theil grundverschiedenen 
Bedeutung und abweichenden Anordnung, identisch sind und dies unméglich 
zufallig sein kann, so mtissen wir annehmen, dass sie wahrscheinlich gleich- 
zeitig, -edenfalls aber an einem Punkte urspriinglich zuerst erfunden sind 
und von da sich verbreitet haben, folglich, da den in verschiedener Werthung 
gebrauchten eine doppelte Bedeutung nicht gleich von Anfang an kann beige- 
legt worden sein, die eine die urspriingliche, die andere die durch willkiir- 
liche Anderung erst spater entstandene ist. Da ferner die abweichende Folge 
des und X in den Alphabeten der verschiedenen Gruppen mit diesem 
Wechsel der Bedeutung des X offenbar in | einem ursachlichen Zusammen- 
hange steht, so lasst auch diese Abweichung sich nur so erklaren, dass die 
eine Ordnung als die urspriingliche, die andere als die abgeanderte und se- 
cundare betrachtet wird. Die Frage ist nur, welche von beiden Gruppen als 
diejenige zu gelten hat, die den urspriinglichen Zustand am treuesten darstellt, 
die dstliche oder die westliche. (Op. cit. pp. 173 sq., 4.5 Auflage.) 


The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 261 


In the next paragraph—the last of the text proper of the Studien 
—Professor Kirchhoff in his first and second editions declared 
himself inclined to favor the Western origin of the signs. In the 
third and fourth editions he says instead that, important as the 
solution of the problem is for other questions concerning the de- 
velopment of Greek civilization, he does not believe that the epi- 
graphical data at our disposal afford a sufficient foundation to build 
upon either way; therefore he prefers to reserve his decision in 
awaiting further epigraphical discoveries. That he still inclines— 
or until lately inclined—to believe in the Western origin of the 
signs in question might be inferred from his still in the fourth 
edition citing them in the Western order; but the inference would, 
perhaps, be an unfair one. 

In what follows I shall endeavor briefly to examine what has 
been done in the way of discussion and discovery toward the 
solution of the problem indicated above from and during the year 
1886, in which year the fourth edition of the Studien went to press. 

In an article on ‘The Early Ionic Alphabet’ in the Journal of 
Hellenic Studies for 1886 (pp. 220-239) Mr Ernest Gardner treated 
the symbols ¢ X ¥ as Ionic and transmitted from East to West (p. 
236). “It is a recognized rule,” says he (pp. 236 sq.), “to which 
there are few exceptions, that the symbols of any one alphabet 
borrowed at one time from any other alphabet, invariably preserve 
the order they held in that other alphabet; and that new symbols, 
whether produced by independent differentiation or by fresh bor- 
rowing, are placed at the end in the alphabetic order, or next to 
the symbol from which they originated, as our own J, V, W. But 
this is only possible when the symbols are not also used as numerals 
in their alphabetic order. If we apply this rule to the last symbols 
of the Western alphabet, +, %, y, we see at once that they cannot 
be derived from the Ionian ?,+,¥. If we take the last two letters 
only, Φ, ¥, there is no objection to meet as regards order. Hence 
-+ must have been there before. Now this + is used with the 
signification of ¢, but in these Western alphabets the alphabetic 
place of the Phoenician samekh and the Greek € is filled by a 
symbol evidently borrowed from the Phoenicians, but for practical 
purposes disused, fj. Evidently what had happened here is the 
same as what we find in the case of ¢ and v. The Phoenician 
symbol is borrowed, and falls into practical disuse; but a secondary 


262 Greek Archaeology 


symbol evolved from it is placed at the end of the alphabet, and 
continues to hold its place in writing. Thus ΕΗ survived as ἃ 
symbol only, but +, its simplified form, continued to live and to 
represent the sound €. And the new form was naturally placed 
at the end of the alphabet. Now when the Western Greeks, already 
possessing this symbol, came to borrow from the lonians Φ, +, VW, 
they could not adopt the +, simply because it was identical with 
the symbol they already possessed, and used to denote € But the 
other two they borrowed, and put after their + at the end of their 


alphabet; Φ they retained in its original form; but for the guttural — 


aspirate they needed a sign far more than for the combination ao 
and accordingly they made the other new symbol, WV, serve to denote 
that sound.” 

The words just quoted form perhaps the most valuable part of 
Mr Gardner’s article, albeit the part least heeded, it would seem. 
Whatever may be thought of his derivation of Western + from 
fA his assumption of an entirely independent Western + and his 
explanation of the arrangement of the supplementary signs of the 
Western alphabet as due to a grafting of the Eastern ΦΧ W upon 
an alphabet already possessing besides the A . . . V series an added 
symbol + = é are at once bold and shrewd. But the lack of 
epigraphical evidence of the borrowing or adoption by one section 
of the Greek race from another of alphabetic signs with changed 
value left Mr Gardner’s theory in the pgsition of other guesses at 
truth, viz. in that of mere conjecture. The epigraphical evidence 
required to give it higher rank was ten years in coming. In the 
meantime several other people tried their heads and hands at the 
problem. 

Before taking up Mr Gardner’s successors we should note an 
important publication closely preceding his. Professor von Wilamo- 
witz-Moellendorff in his Homerische Untersuchungen, published in 
1884, gave it as his plain opinion (of. cit. p. 289) that the supple- 
mentary signs in question were of Ionic origin. @ and X he would 
derive from @. (Lenormant and Taylor had so derived ©.) V 
he thought a differentiation of Y (in this coinciding with Clermont- 
Ganneau). “When this expanded alphabet came to the mother- 
country, (Ὁ was received with unanimity, but the cross seemed rather 
a development from samekh than from @; so it was employed for 
xo, and WV for x; φσ either received no special sign, or else a new 


Sa a ee 





The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 4265 


and not very successful one.” Mr Gardner writes as though he 
did not know of this theory. We turn now to the later writers. 

In a short article entitled ‘Zur Geschichte des griechischen 
Alphabets,’ published in the Athenian Mittheilungen for 1890 (pp. 
235-239) and dated from Vienna in the preceding year, Emil Szanto 
set forth a rather fantastic theory about the signs we are consider- 
ing. Starting with the theory broached by Professor von Wilamo- 
witz-Moellendorff (as above), Mr Szanto says that it requires the 
assumption of the existence of a samekh with the value of € in the 
Western group at the time of its assumed act of borrowing from 
the Eastern. Besides, the influencing of one alphabet by another 
in such wise as to produce an unhomogeneous result seems to Mr 
Szanto improbable. His own theory is as follows: 

is common to both groups in the same signification. It must 
be older than the division into groups. This no-group stage of the 
Greek alphabet is represented by the Theraean alphabet, which 
must have been the common Greek alphabet. [It may be fairly 
asked on what grounds a purely local alphabet can be called 
“gemeingriechisch.”] The Theraean alphabet expresses the 
aspirates by @ H, K H, and Γ' H, and € and ψ by K M and P mM. 
The analogy is disturbed by @H for TH, but there is no real diffi- 
culty; for both theta and tau are Phoenician. But as @ H was 
written for T H, so ΦΗ and X H could be written after the inven- 
tion of Φ and X to denote the aspirates, an apt mode of expression 
indeed if the sounds were affricates. The Numasios inscription 
seems to support the view that this was done. If that be so, there 
was once a stage of the common Greek alphabet at which the 
aspirates were denoted by @H, ¢ H, and X H, which gave way later 
(at least in the East) to simple @, Φ, and X.—The oldest expres- 
sions for € and w were xo and zo. Between these signs and the 
Ionic stand the Attic ᾧ = and X =. [These should be rather Φ 4 
and X¥.] These are therefore relics of a once universal mode of 
writing. The Attic alphabet must not be regarded as an isolated 
phenomenon. From the Naxian  % we can infer that at a time 
when X was as yet non-existent and the expression yo was there- 
fore impossible, the expression 4o appeared more adequate than 
xo. So we have to reconstruct a common Greek alphabet in which 
6is = MH, d= OH, x= ΧΗ, ἔ--  ΧΞ, Y= $8, in which, therefore, 
the newly invented signs Φ and X had already either the value of 


264 Greek Archaeology 


¢ and x, or one very near it, one that could be rendered equivalent 
to it by the addition of an aspiration. [It is pretty hard to under- 
stand what this sound might have been like.]_ H was soon dropped 
after @. Next came the attempt to simplify the other four double 
signs. This was done by dropping the second element. So 
could be either x or € (from ¢ H or from ¢ %.). Both were tried. 
Hence arose the double equivalence. Owing to the great territorial 
extension of the Greek alphabet at this time geographical groups 
were formed. The Eastern cancelled H and gained a x but lost a 
ἔξ, which was supplied by samekh. The Western cancelled = and 
gained a € but lost a x. So in the case of the labials: in the East 
they got a Φ by cancelling H, but had to differentiate a Y out of Φ. 
In a similar fashion they could have got a φ in the West. But then 
y was not felt as a monophthong; so ¢ was gained as in the East. 
But a growing yearning for a x led to the borrowing of the Eastern 
y to supply the want. “This solution,” says Mr Szanto, “pre- 
supposes a unity of the Greek alphabet until the time of the giving 
up of the four double letters and their replacement by single signs, 
likewise uniform adoption of the idea of employing the simple 
signs for these sounds; from this point, however, the ways part, 
and finally a sign is borrowed from the East for the West.”—The 
varying arrangement of the signs in East and West can be easily 
explained. The two aspirates might be placed first, the two double 
consonants second; or the two gutturals first, the two labials second. 
In the East, the former arrangement was followed; but inasmuch 
as samekh, keeping its place in the alphabet, was used for ἔξ, only 
¢ x ¥ stood at the end. In the Western alphabets that have ¢ ΦΧ 
the aspirates follow the double consonants; in those that have ¢ x ἔ 
either the principle of juxtaposition of labials and gutturais is fol- 
lowed or that of grouping aspirates and double sounds. In either 
grouping the labials have the precedence. 

There are some “spunks of sense” in all this, but they are not 
enough to set the river afire. The theory found small favor with 
the next disputant, Ernst Kalinka, who, in an article, ‘Eine 
boiotische Alphabetvase,’ in Ath. Mitth. 17 (1892), pp. 101-124, 
dated from Florence, November, 1891, disagrees with Mr Szanto 
in many things. He too doubts whether any part of the Greek race 
borrowed a number of signs from another in such wise as to leave 
to one sign its original signification, while giving to others an 


SS 


The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 265 


entirely different value. But the pleonastic © @ and X B are not 
found [Mr Kalinka sets aside the proof of the existence of the 
former derived by Mr Szanto from Nicandre’s inscription] and @ 
was not a dental aspirate. He finds it hard to believe that two 
signs were invented that were intended never to be used singly but 
always in connection with another sign. The + in its position 
after V, which is peculiar to the Western Greeks, belongs to the 
earliest period of the separate development of the alphabet. The 
aspirate group ΦΧ was next added. The East went a step farther 
in adding w. The earliest step to the independent development of 
the Greek alphabet was the Ionic mutation of value of samekh to 
€. Samekh was dealt with as the vowel signs and zayin had been 
dealt with. «xo was written in Ionia before € came into use. In 
Attica € was not introduced because of a difference of pronuncia- 
tion. But zo and xo were not adequate representations of the 
sound. Therefore, the Attic Greeks invented φ and X, the former 
out of @, the latter out of Κα. The Western Greeks did not accept 
X: they had that sign in use already in a different sense. But they 
realized the value of a sign for the guttural aspirate; so they made 
V out of koppa (an abbreviation of 9 8) by cutting off its top. 
The new sign naturally grew more angular [perhaps withering after 
its top was cut off like the cabbage-palms in the Anabasis]. The 
East made Y out of the Athenian @ %. 

In the same year with Mr Kalinka’s rather remarkable article, 
but too early to take notice of it, appeared Dr Wilhelm Larfeld’s 
treatise on Greek epigraphy in von Miiller’s Handbuch (dated 1891). 
Dr Larfeld, on more than doubtful grounds, would carry back the 
Ionic—more precisely, the Milesian—alphabet, including 2, to 800 
B.c. ® X Y are to him of Eastern—more precisely, Milesian— 
origin and are derived from koppa, tau, and ypsilon respectively. 
Their position answers to the order of those signs. The Western 
arrangement é¢ x (+ 9 Y) is a mechanical and unmotived suffix- 
ing of the Eastern signs. The failure to take over the Eastern 
signs directly is due to difference of pronunciation in the West. 

In 1893 W. Schmid published in the Philologus (52, pp. 366-379) 
a paper ‘Zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets.’ Starting 
with adverse criticism of Szanto, the author goes on to say that 
the testimony of the inscriptions forces us to the conclusion that Φ 


266 Greek Archaeology 


was invented to express ph (spirant). So X to express ch (spirant). 
We must, he says, assume the following principles [better, principle 
and corollary] in judging any alphabet properly so called: (1) 
Each sign is =a vocal atom (Lautatomon). (2) This applies to 
signs derived from a foreign alphabet and a fortiori to those that 
are newly invented in the alphabet in question. The history of the 
alphabet cannot be separated from that of sounds and dialects. 
Simple signs for the aspirates were used when the aspirates approxi- 
mated the fricatives. X and Φ were spirants. The change of 
aspirates to spirants in Greek goes hand in hand with the repression 
of the independent aspirate. The consummation of the process 
appears in modern Greek, the most important phonetic peculiarities 
of which were almost all developed before our era, but were hidden 
under the crust of conventional literary speech and spelling. So 
we may assume, continues Dr Schmid, that the spirant pronuncia- 
tion of the aspirates arose where the spiritus asper first gave way, 
i. 6. among the Aeolians and Ionians of Asia Minor. The invention 
of Φ and X was the first alphabet innovation in the Eastern alphabet 
group. That is proved by the alphabets of Asiatic affinities that 
show Φ and X, but not Ἐ and Y, viz. the Attic and the Naxian. 
Next came the invention of the signs for the assibilates. To the 
arbitrary value xo was assigned. The assibilates were introduced 
before the seventh century. In the Western group of alphabets X 
was not taken from the Eastern, but independently developed 
(= xo). This was felt as the first desideratum in the West. It 
is to be noted that the Western group is prevailingly Doric. KM 
at Thera and Melos may perhaps indicate that the aspiration before 
o disappeared early among the Dorians. The coincidence in form 
in + between East and West is purely accidental. “Already in 
possession of an alphabet of twenty-four signs, the Western group 
became acquainted with the three new inventions, Φ X V, of the 
Eastern group. X =ch they could no longer use; for they had 
it, or a sign very like it, already in use for ks. Only Φ and WV were 
available. was accepted with its Eastern value; but an expres- 
sion for ps was not needed, and to W_ was given the value of ch.” 


*I may note here that Dr Schmid’s explanation of the place and manner of 
the introduction of the spirants (“aspirates”) is a priori both reasonable and 
natural, and appears to be the only one that suits the facts. 


— ee a ν. τς 


The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 267 


Thus far the discussion of the problem has proceeded without 
fresh epigraphical discoveries. It has been somewhat complicated 
by the introduction of the question of pronunciation, but all the 
disputants have favored more or less the sonant pronunciation of 
@ and x—Dr Schmid most emphatically. In an article entitled 
‘Die sekundaren Zeichen des griechischen Alphabets’ published by 
Dr Paul Kretschmer in the Ath. Mitth. for 1896 (pp. 410-433) and 
dated “Berlin, Dez. 1896,” a new theory is proposed and, better 
still, a new epigraphical discovery is utilized, though not so fully 
as it might be. 

With Szanto Dr Kretschmer agrees in one point: he, too, would. 
make X a simplified X 2 (p. 426). But he arrives at the former 
sign by a different way. In opposition to Schmid, he seeks to prove 
untenable the view that @ and x could represent spirants at the 
time of the invention and propagation of the secondary signs (pp. 
412-420). In this he believes he has succeeded. He next discusses 
the question, why the Greeks felt the need of a €. In the Naxian 
sign 0) [which, and not 8, the stone shews] he sees, with Kalinka, 
a guttural spirant—or, at any rate, a guttural that was neither x 
nor x [the latter being an aspirate in his view]. So in the Rhodian 
Euthytidas inscription (J. G. Ins. I, 709) he sees in X 2 not éo, 
but a guttural, like the Naxian O, plusao. He would place Boeo- 
tian + 5, which occurs side by side with V (= €), on the same 
footing as Rhodian X =. It is plain, Dr Kretschmer thinks, that 
in general € was not =xo. Was the X or V of X = and V & 
aspirate or spirant? KB δὰ does not occur at Thera: only K M. 
But if in X = the X is spirant, Φ should be spirant in @ =. But we 
have no proof of such a pronunciation of yw, and Eastern + side 
by side with Vis against it. € and y are not, in Dr Kretschmer’s 
view, parallel. € is = khs passing to guttural spirant plus 5. Thus, 
Dr Kretschmer thinks, we have got the key to the mystery. “We 
are brought to an alphabet in which x is represented by Y, as in 
the later Western alphabets, and the guttural of € by X, as in the 
Eastern alphabets. This alphabet leads forward to the Western 
series: X = could be abbreviated to x = &, inasmuch as the guttural 
spirant occurred only before o and the omission of sigma, there- 
fore, would cause no misapprehension.” Again: “The Eastern 
alphabet with X for both x and the guttural element of € represents 


268 Greek Archaeology 


the older manner of writing. Since the guttural element of € was 
spirant, or became so, the necessity arose of distinguishing this 
spirant from kh also in writing. At Naxos a variant of Heta was 
employed for the guttural spirant. In the West a new sign for the 
aspirate (WV) was invented that was diffused over most of conti- 
nental Greece, and was carried also to Rhodes, Sicily, and Italy. 
In the East the quiescent samekh was employed: for € In Attica 
and in most of the Cyclades the old style was maintained.” In the 
alphabets that employed ξ the phonetic group ps (phs) received a 
special sign for symmetry’s sake, viz. the Western Y= yx. We 
have epigraphical proof (presently to be given) that a letter could 
be borrowed by one alphabet from another with change of value; 
and as for the inexact analogy of € and ψ, we know that Archinus 
compared » with € and in recommending to the Athenians the 
introduction of the Ionic alphabet (Aristotle Metaph. 1093 a; 
Syrianus Schol. Aristot. Metaph. p. 940 Ὁ). The less frequent use 
of walso shews that less need of it than of € was felt. As for the 
arrangement of the supplementary signs, that has a phonetic basis. 
The aspirates always stand together. The original order was the 
Eastern. Y was added to ΦΧ. “In the West the newly invented 
aspirate sign Y must, on account of the phonetic principle, stand 
after >; X was placed either before the aspirates (X ¢ Y in the 
Chalcidian and Boeotian alphabets) or behind them (? Y X in the 
Achaean alphabet ).’’? 

*T have thought it well to present here in a footnote some further notes on 
the first part of Dr Kretschmer’s important article. Dr Kretschmer sets aside 
the discussion of the formal development of the supplementary signs (p. 411). 
He does so, it seems to me, with too great flippancy. The matter is one of 
great importance. His arguments for the aspirate versus the spirant pronun- 
ciation of @ and x (pp. 412-420) are not convincing. These do not repre- 


sent the view of all philologists competent to deal with the subject; and even 


Dr Kretschmer, as will have been observed, has to make a concession to the 
opposing view in the case of his combination of x with sibilant. Jt is this 
obstinate aspirate theory that stands in the way of the acceptance of so sim- 
ple an explanation as that of Dr Schmid, and forces upon us some very 
tortuous argumentation A MINUS PROBABILI, Dr Kretschmer’s discussion of 
the reason for introducing a simple sign for ¢ (pp. 421 sqq.) is not convincing, 
nor very consistent. His view of Naxian [J> seems very forced. The Naxian 
Oz was, I venture to think, developed before the introduction of the Ionic 
X. Dr Kretschmer says (p. 424) that only the fact that at Thera K M, and 
not KHM, is written is against the aspirate pronunciation of X (and Y 


: 
ae Ee a, Se a 





The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 269 


In the concluding section of his paper (pp. 430-433), Dr Kretsch- 
mer discusses the archaic inscriptions found by Hiller von Gart- 
ringen at Thera in 1896 (see Ath. Mitth. 21 [1896], p. 252 sqq., 
and the Jnscrr. Gr. Insularum), in addition to those that were pre- 
viously known, and sums up our knowledge about the development 
of the Theraean alphabet. The first period has J [A] = B (con- 
firming by several examples Professor Collitz’s view), f = y,B = ἃ 
and η, @ (twice @ Εἰ}, = or S=.1, F=A, Φ--α, M =o, ΙΕ -- φ, 
ΚΕ or pB=x, KM=é, and FM=y. But we can infer from a few 
examples, to be regarded as sporadic survivals, an earlier stage at 
which, as in Crete, K and F’ are= x and ¢ respectively and E is =y 
(cf. #M 3 q in the Abron inscription). The use of 4 for ἡ 
comes from a psilotic region—Crete or Ionia. It is not mative to 
Thera. In the second period we have @, >==14 M=c (koppa 
too is found), but the Ionic aspirates [as Dr Kretschmer calls 
them, although lonia is to him a psilotic region] Φ and x have been 
introduced. We find also (perhaps more modern [though the 
reason for this designation is not plain]) ἔξ represented by W in 


wea , to be read ᾿Αλεξαγόρα. There are also (cf. Ath. Mitth. 


1896, p. 221) one or two inscriptions at Melos with the same pecu- 
liarity. The solution of this puzzling use of V is to be found in 


= x). He says further (ibid.) that the fact that if xo is = guttural spirant 
+s, do must be = fs is a grave objection to the view that the character in 
question is = guttural spirant. Dr Kretschmer’s statement (p. 424) that 
“die verschiedene Behandlung νοῦ ἕ und y in den westlichen Alphabeten—fir 
ersteres giebt es ein besonderes Zeichen, fiir letzteres im Allgemeinen nicht— 
weist darauf hin, dass diese Lautverbindungen nicht genau analog waren” 
falls to the ground, if the theory of a grafting of Eastern alphabet on 
Western that I with others maintain is correct. Dr Kretschmer assumes (p. 
426) an alphabet in which χ is expressed by Y, “wie in den spateren west- 
lichen Alphabeten, und der guttural von € mit X, wie in den Ostlichen be- 
zeichnet wird.” But this “missing link” nowhere appears. “Vorwarts,” 
continues Dr Kretschmer, “fiihrt dieses Alphabet zu dem Zustand der west- 
lichen Reihe: X =konnte zur X = & abgekiirzt werden, weil der gutturale 
Spirant nur vor o vorkam, also kein Missverstandnis entstand, wenn man das 
sigma wegliess.” ‘This is surely a clumsy process. Is it like the Greeks? Dr 
Kretschmer believes (p. 429) that the Aeolians “in archaischen Zeit, d. h. vor 
Einfithrung des ionischen Alphabet, das Zeichen X im Sinne von y verwendet 
haben.” Surely this is wrong in expression, whatever may be the fact, inas- 


much as X = x is Ionic. ὴ 


370 Greek Archaeology 


the use (testified to by these [four] Theraean inscriptions) of = 
for ¢. There are also examples of I= ¢, but they would probably 
be due to influence from without the island.1| Dr Kretschmer 
thinks (p. 433) that we have in this peculiar manner of writing 
proof that the Theraeans (and perhaps, too, the Melians) used the 
sign of samekh for ¢. [Would it not, I venture to suggest, be 
better to class the zeta with three horizontal bars with the four- 
barred epsilon that is found in Boeotia?] ‘So when the secondary 
signs of the Ionic alphabets,” he concludes, “became known in Thera, 
the Theraeans took over the aspirate signs Φ and X for @ and x 
without change ; but inasmuch as ¥ was still used among them for ζ, 
and, for the reason previously given, they had no need of a special 
sign for y, they changed the value of the Ionic sign for y to that 
of ἔξ. That happened at Melos too, unless the Y = é there is a 
Theraean importation. The great value of this fact appears to me 
to lie in this, that the change of the Western Y = x to the Eastern 
value w thus becomes really plausible.” 

This contains an important element of truth, but we may draw 
further and, I venture to think, sounder conclusions. In the change 
of value of V at Thera we see the result of a deliberate attempt on 
somebody’s part to introduce into the Theraean alphabet the short- 
hand Ionic symbols for the double consonants and the aspirants in 
addition to the signs already there. The procedure must, it seems 
to me, have been as distinct and deliberate as that. The Φ and X 
would be taken “ohne weiteres,” as Dr Kretschmer says; the change 
of value of V was, as he also says, due to the pressure of $ =@; 
and we must, it should seem, also admit, without, however, accept- 
ing his view of the reason, that greater need was felt of a symbol 
for KM than of one for PM. 

We may now apply a similar course of reasoning to the introduc- 
tion of the Ionic symbols into the West (and here we may make, 
with Mr Gardner, Dr W. Schmid, and Dr Larfeld, the assumption 
that the supplementary symbols in the West came from Ionia—or, 
more precisely, Miletus). Suppose a Western alphabet with + = é 
after Y. Suppose that the users of that alphabet, or rather some 
small group or individuals among them, deliberately sought to graft 


Ἔ BV M= Ζεύς appears twice at Corinth (Kretschmer, Ath. Mitth. 22 
[1807], p. 343 sq.). 


The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 271 


upon it the Ionic (Milesian) supplementary signs for the spirants 
and for the double consonants that they lacked; or, more precisely, 
that they sought to perfect their alphabet by the addition from an 
Ionic source of signs for ph, ch, ps (phs), in that order and at the 
end of their alphabet. In the case of the first sign they could 
accept—and did, I believe, accept—value and symbol together. In 
the case of the second sign they could accept the value, but they 
could not accept the symbol on account of their -+— €. Therefore 
they cancelled the symbol but accepted the value, attaching that 
value to the third symbol. They were thus left without a symbol 
for y. In this process we seem to see a deliberate attempt on the 
part of some one—an earlier Archinus—to enlarge the scope of 
alphabetic expression by the addition of signs and values together 
and, so far as possible, in a traditional order,—a fully conscious 
and systematic procedure. This rests on an assumption—on 
assumptions, if you will,—but the reductio has not been brought, 
perhaps (as I trust) cannot be brought, ad absurdum. 

In conclusion I venture to call attention to another case of a 
change of value of an imported symbol (also Ionic) which can, 
I think, be detected at Paros, Siphnos, Thasos, and Delos. Here 
the close o-sounds are represented by Q, the long open one by O; 
whereas the reverse is the case in Ionia (Miletus). At Melos we 
have a differentiation of the symbols for the o-sounds in the same 
direction as at Paros etc., but in a manner independent of Ionia 
(C =o, ov; O=w). Now the Parian and Milesian systems must 
hang together, and all plausibility lies in favor of the Ionic system 
being the original. But why should the Ionic symbols have been . 
reversed in their values at Paros etc.? There seems to be but one 
reasonable answer to this, viz. that in an earlier stage of the Parian 
alphabet (perhaps we should rather say the Delian alphabet) a 
differentiation of the o-signs had been made, either the same as at 
Melos—and hence connected with that method—or at least in the 
same direction. Upon this differentiation the Ionic differentiation 
was grafted, and the value of the Ionic symbols was thereby re- 
versed, because the symbol developed from the O that was in use 
as a differentiative in the islands in question—or at the centre 
whence their alphabet spread—had the value of the close o-sounds, 
not of the open. The Ionic (Milesian) differentiative had thus, on 


272 Greek Archaeology 


its acceptance in the Cyclades, its function changed to that of the 
local O. This explanation may have occurred to others besides 
myself, but I do not remember to have met with it elsewhere. 

I would emphasize, what I believe our epigraphical data warrant, 
the view that alphabetic shifts and changes of the character of 
those I have been discussing were made among the Greeks with full 
consciousness and after much deliberation. The arguments attrib- 
uted to Archinus at the official introduction of the Ionic alphabet 
at Athens are but the last stage of a movement that derived, as Dr 
Schmid thinks, the spirant signs from the Phoenician @ and added 
the symbols for the double consonants to I. That the similarity of 
form of the quiescent samekh to I had much to do with the scheme 
of signs adopted for the double consonants seems, to me at least, 
very probable. 


I venture to add a few bits of supplementary speculation. 

(1) If the early spirant pronunciation of (Ὁ and the pronuncia- 
tion among the Ionians of I as ds were demonstrable, it would be 
easy to set up a plausible theory of the way in which, in important 
particulars, the Greeks enlarged the Phoenician alphabet. @ plus 
ΦΧ (+) could be the filling out of a spirant scheme (the forms 
of the last two characters derived from the first, as Professor von 
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff suggested); I plus ¥ and V_ would be 
the filling out of an assibilate scheme. Both spirant scheme and 
assibilate scheme would start with the dental. The similarity in 
form between I and £ as an element in the process I have already 
alluded to. It may be added that € had already a place in the 
alphabet ; therefore the fact that it precedes V = y does not imply 
that it was used = ks before the latter sign came into use. W might 
be derived from Φ. 

(2) We might trace the following stages of the development 
from the Phoenician alphabet into ‘the Ionian (Milesian) : 

(a) The introduction (or rather, chiefly, adaptation and adop- 
tion) of vowel signs; 

(b) The development and adoption of a group of spirant signs; 

(c) The development and adoption of a group of assibilate signs; 

(d) The development of signs for the open E and O vowels. 

The question of the treatment of the various sibilants taken over 
from the Phoenicians must be dealt with apart. 


The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet 273 


(3) I have spoken above of a Milesian alphabet and of a Delian 
alphabet. Both would be connected with the culture that centred 
about important shrines of the great divinity of culture—Apollo. 
May not the great Delphic shrine have played its part? Should 
we say Delphian alphabet for Western alphabet? 





APPENDIX 


SELECTED Porms anp [TRANSLATIONS 





BIBLIOGRAPHY 


ὲ , ip 
Pe Seetcos M erovese Kacesev 


Cera Kam Rye Su preven μαϑὼν τετιηστι ϑυμῶε 
σεληθα NewaSva Pedy διεικρυχέων ξνόδυῦι 


͵ 
> & 3 - 
ΦΑλλ᾽ ἔτι πολλὰ καὶ ἔσϑλεα περι πλομενων ἐνερ υ τῶν 
΄ 


af 7 2 ΄ Ξ- ‘ 
Ywtvy ¥ HPL CeT te Oy NA o1e« Reece REereges 


[This jeu d’esprit, written on a post-card, was sent as a message of con- 
dolence from a favorite cat (“Frederick Charles”) to his brother (“Cock- 
tail”), on the death of their uncle (“Smilax”). It is here reproduced as a 
specimen of Professor Earle’s beautiful Greek script.] 


POEMS AND TRANSLATIONS 


DAWN IN ACHAIA. 


The old moon dies within the new moon’s arms; 

Above the glorious star of morning shines 

In limpid light; nearer the coming sun 

Another star is fading in the glow 

That gently heralds forth his majesty. 

On the long stretch of sand the silvery waves 

Tramp in soft thunder, shaking their white manes; 

And there, beyond them, dark and sullen still, 

Rises the long, sharp mountain-ridge, where now 

Kests heavily a line of leaden cloud. 

Landward the yellow line of garden wall; 

Beyond it, vineyards and low olive trees; 

And further upland, where the mountain-sides 

Begin to swell in terraces on high, 

The hamlets wait the greeting of the day. 

Afar beyond them looks across the plains 

And o’er the sea, where his proud compeers stand, 

Cyllene, hoary-white with winter’s snow. 

But see! Apollo’s golden car leaps forth 

Above the horizon’s edge, glorious in might. 

And the god’s arrows fly through azure space, 

Smiting Parnassus with their flaming barbs, 

So that his forehead and his breast are stained 

As with pale blood ambrosial and divine. 

And Hellas! would to Zeus and all the powers 

That ruled thy heights empyrean once of old, 

I might win from that wondrous mystic past 

One hour, wherein my eyes might see thee smile 

From where old Sicyon gazed upon the sea! 
1887-8. 


Me 


278 


Appendix 


WILD FLOWERS OF GREECE. 


Hard by the old gray stones they grow to-day, 

"Neath the great pines, where the wind sweetly sighs 

As if it were a dryad’s voice that mourns 

In gentle cadence glories of the past. 

Their golden cups nod in the mountain breeze, 

As though beneath the tread of airy nymphs. 

And see yon broken stem, crushed to the sod: 

Could one not think, but for our doubting days 

When every man a Thomas is, and worse, 

That the sharp hoof of some young satyr trod 

Upon the tender blossom, as he danced 

In merry measure to the pipe of Pan, 

Holding his forest revels in this vale, 

O’er which Pentele towers in majesty? 

And did they grow, and were they blooming here, 

When frank young maidens in those olden days, 

When love walked naked and was not ashamed, 

Roaming the valley by their lovers’ sides 

Gathered these wild flowers for their locks, or wore 

Them with the ivy of their god entwined? 

Fairest of chaplets for the loveliest heads 

That ever drooped beneath the stroke of death; 

For, like these humbler children of the glen, 

They vanished and their places vacant left 

For others joying in the vital air. 

Ah! sweets of earth, ye are but brief at best; 

Glad hours we have, while youth and love and wine 

Tune the fierce pulses to a measure swift 

That heralds but the hour of fate afar. 

Ye flowers of Greece, Demeter’s mother-smile, 

Calm gladness for her daughter’s safe return, 

Ye do but hide the graves wherein the past 

Is what we shall be, when our dust is laid 

Far from this lovely nook, wherein yon gold 

Mocks the vain wishes of the race of men. 
1887-8. 


Poems and Translations 


Λείψανα 

Εἰς τὰ δένδρα ἀποκάτω 

Μέσ᾽ ᾿ς τοῦ δάσους τὰ λουλούδια 
Κάθισα καὶ τοῦ ἀνέμου 

"Ακουσ᾽ οὗλα τὰ τραγούδια. 
Καὶ ὃ Νότος μοῦ ἐφύσα 

Eis τῶν πεύκων τὰ κλωνάρια, 
᾿Σὰν τοῦ Ἔρωτος τὸ πνεῦμα, 

"Epwros μὲ τὰ κοντάρια. 
Παρακάτω ᾿ς τὴν κοιλάδα 

Παρατήρησα τἀρείπια, 
Ποῦ τοῦ Βάκχου, ἔτσι λένε, 


Γεννηθήκανε τὰ νήπια. 
Τώρα ᾿βρίσκονται κατσίκαις, 
Τώρα ᾿βρίσκονται xv ἀμπέλια, 
Μόν᾽ οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶς λείπουν 
"Am τοῦ Βάκχου τά θεμέλια. 
"Ax! γματί κισσὸν νὰ ᾿βροῦμε 
Καὶ ἀγάλματος κομμάτια, 
*Av ἰδοῦμε μόνον ταῦτα 
᾿Απ᾿ τὰ παλαιὰ παλάτια ; 
Μὰ δὲ βλέπεις πεταλούδαις, 
Σὰ στοιχεῖα μέσ᾽ ᾿ς τ᾽ ἀέρια, 
Tvpw γύρω ποῦ πετᾶνε 
Καὶ μᾶς φεύγουν ἀπ᾽ τὰ χέρια ; 
Προσοχή / νὰ μὴν ταὶς βλάψῃς " 
Εἶναι θεῖα τὰ ζωύΐφια. 
“Hi ψυχαὶς καλῶν Ἑλλήνων 


Παρασταίνονταί μας κρύφια. 


279 


Ἔν ᾿Αθήναις, τῇ 21 Φεβ. 1ὅδό, 


280 Appendix 


EURIPIDES IN SALAMIS.? 


Salamis azure-ringed with laughing sea 
Whose salt lips drank the Persians’ blood of old, 
Gem—beyond price of Asian hoards untold— 
Upon the billowy robe of Athens free; 
Sweet sun-kissed isle, yet reef of tyranny, 
Hallowed art thou, Muse-famed Ajacian hold, 
Where voices haunt and memory’s ear enfold, 
Like drowsy Comus-song of thyme-flown bee: 
Thy caverned ghosts still speak through eddying years, 
Though ’twixt us disuniting surges flow, 
Bringing nepenthe and hot smart of tears; 
For on thy shore’s gray rim, thought-steeped and slow, . 
Pondered that prophet of our soul-deep fears, 
His shadow lengthening in the god’s last glow. 


ODYSSEUS: 


Across the purpling bacchanalian waves 
That riot on the deep and tramp the shore, 
All steadfastly sea-swart Odysseus bore 
On ship, on raft, that wind and sea-god braves. 
What though his fate and course be gyvéd slaves 
In the stern Spinners’ thread wound o’er and o’er, 
When in his ears there echoes evermore 
What through all peril he still, deep-yearning, craves? 
For, constant as the wheeling sea-bird’s call 
Sweeping the wine-faced deep on snowy wing, 
Sweeter than Siren-music’s magic fall, 
Or Circe’s notes of far-melodious ring, 
From the home-island’s suitor-wantoned hall 
One true voice goals ten years of wandering. 


*[From the Bookman, December, 1900, p. 372. 





Poems and Translations 281 


HELLAS. 


Murky the night and dark, in angry fits 
The wind sweeps free; 

Cleaving the shadows dank my spirit flits, 
Hellas, to thee! 


Under the violet heights where Pallas reigns, 
O’er azure sea, 

There rocking sails skim light, on billowed plains, 
Hellas, to thee! 


Where Zante’s isle looms up, with castled Steep 
To beckon me, 

In lulling dreams I glide thro’ phantomed ἀέρι 
Hellas, to thee! 


Ah! heart-sick, feeble-breathed with passion’s flame, 
In ecstasy, 

Yearn I to revel, freed from thraldom’s claim, 
Hellas, in thee! 


When death, all-vanquisher, from his dark prow 
Beckons to flee, 

May he with Grecian thyme wreathe this cold brow, 
Hellas, in thee! 


Then like the daemon-souls, in ancient days 
Fabled to be, 
May I haunt mountain-heights, lapped in soft rays, 


Hellas, in thee! 
Jan. 15 and 26, 1890. 


ATTICA, 
In the sweep and cadence of Attica’s pines, 
The kiss of her breezes, the blood of her vines; 
In the tremble and thrill of her nightingales’ moan, 
The murmuring splash of her sea’s lulling tones; 


In the blossoms and bees of her mountains and glens, 
The rank grass that heaves over Marathon’s fens, 
Stirs the breath and the voice of a spirit supreme, 
A message to prophets in ecstasy’s dream. 


Jan. 26, 1890. 


282 


Appendix 


THE, PARTHENON: 


In the hush of the dawning it rises sublime, 

’Neath the cloudless abysses of Hellas’ sweet clime 
Thyme-kissed by the breath o’er Hymettus that strays 
In the bliss of the birth of long midsummer days. 


’Tis a dream of the spirit of masterless mind, 

The essence of wisdom and sweetness combined, 
Springing keen as the eagle o’er Tempe that swings 
From the brow of the Thunderer, the tyrant of kings. 


The shrine of our Pallas, fair gem of the crown 
On Attica’s forehead from aether sent down, 
O’er the wine-faced Aegean it beacons afar, 

In columned perfection, earth’s exquisite star. 


Come bow to the Goddess from East and from West, 
Sing praises in honour of Athens the blest; 

Though fallen, she rises forever the goal 

Eternal that governs each fire-breathed soul. 


Parmenides’ chariot no farther could speed 

Exalted ’mid clouds ’neath the God’s shaft that bleed; 
Crown high then the goblet Icarius gave 

And thrice pour the honour on Phidias’ grave. 


' Feb. 15, 1806. 


EVENING. 


When evening’s star, the bright, 
From the blue deep 
Beacons to me, 


Winging afar its flight 
O’er mountains steep, 
Over the sea, 


Speeds then my fancy light 
Fleeter than sleep 
Ever to thee. 


Jan. 30, 1891. 


ee ee τ νὸν ὁ... “ὦ. .-᾿- 


Poems and Translations 


SUNSET. 


When the clear sunset glow 
Pales in the west, 
Over the sea, 


Bright gleams the evening star, 
From azure deeps, 
Guiding to thee. 


Then with dream-pinions spread, 
Swifter than thought 
Airy and free, 


Cleaving the twilight dim, 
My spirit flits, 
Ever to thee. 


Jan. 30, 1891. 


The ripples lap lightly, 
There’s a boat on the sea, 
And her lateen sail flits 
Through the moonlight and dark, 
Her pilot steers true; 
They are speeding to me, 
With a dip and a splash 
As the sea rocks the bark. 
What form rises dim 
Through the gleam of the night? 
Who is guiding the sail, 
And what means the bright spark? 
My heart tells me true: 
*Tis a convoy from * * 
The twin-brothers steer straight 
To my soul as their mark. 


Feb. 7, 1891. 


284 Appendix 


MOONLIGHT 


In a dusky street of a moonlit town 
My love she waits for me, 

Far, far away ’neath a southern sky, 
In an isle ’mid the azure sea. 

I know not whether her face be fair, 
Her eyes be dark and bright: 

But this I know, at the window there 
She yearns in the summer night, 

And her soul at the helm of the rocking bark, 
With its sails spread white to the breeze, 

Doth pilot me on to the haven sure, 
O’er the crests of the silvering seas. 

And when I shall walk through ‘the sleeping town, 
To the house of my love at last, 

Though we knew not each other on earth before, 
We shall bridge the gulf of the past. 

There clasped in her arms in the moonlit dusk, 
In that land where the wind blows free, 

My heart shall rest on her warm soft breast 
And dream of the sky and the sea. 

Athens, Aug. 1891. 


EURIPIDES. 


Born at the birth of that which should be great, 
Born, as they say, upon that fatal tide 
When Salamis saw the Great King’s navy ride 
Within her straits, the torrent east in spate, 
Yet saw it scattered by the stroke of fate, 
Unknowing Athens’ subtle might to abide, 
While Grecian valour ploughed o’er Persian pride— 
Born with the birth of that young power elate, 
Thou wast the prophet of her soberer years, 
Thou wast the prophet of her stormy strife, 
Thou lookedst on her laughter and her tears, 
Thou saw’st her breed, unwitting, larger life; 
And in the eternal Hellas that should be 
Thou gav’st her spirit immortality. 
[From the introduction to Professor Earle’s Medea (1904), p. 14.] 


ee τὰς, ite μεν. Ὁ χε 


Poems and Translations 285 


CATULLI CARMEN V. 


Uiuamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus, 
Rumoresque senum seueriorum 

Omnes unius aestimemus assis. 

Soles occidere et redire possunt: © 
Nobis, cum semel occidit breuis lux, 
Nox est perpetua una dormienda. 

Da mi basia mille, deinde centum, 

Dein mille altera, dein secunda centum, 
Deinde usque altera mille, deinde centum, 
Dein, cum milia multa fecerimus, 
Conturbabimus illa, ne sciamus, 

Aut ne quis malus inuidere possit, 


Cum tantum sciat esse basiorum. 
/ 


CATULLUS TO LESBIA. 


Come, my Lesbia, let us live and love, dear; 

And the querulous words of crabbed greybeards— 
Let us reckon them all not worth a penny. 

Suns gone into the west come back at morning; 

But when our little light of life has set once, 

We must sleep through the night that has no ending. 


Give me kisses a thousand, then a hundred; 
Then a thousand again, and still a hundred; 
Then a thousand a third time and a hundred. 
Then we'll mix the account of all our thousands, 
So that we cannot know, and none can envy, 
When he knows that we’ve had so many kisses. 


Dec. 30, 1886. 


286 Appendix 


LINCOLN’S GETTYSBURG ADDRESS 


Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this 
eontinent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the 
proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that 
nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long en- 
dure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have 
come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for 
those who have given their lives that the nation might live. It is 
altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot conse- 
crate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living 
and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our 
poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long 
remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did 
here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the 
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly 
advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great 
task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take 
increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full 
measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead 
shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have 
a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the 


people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 


Poems and Translations 287 


LINCOLN’S GETTYSBURG ADDRESS 


Ογδοον μὲν ἔτος τουτὶ καὶ ὀγδοηκοστόν, ὦ ἄνδρες πολῖται, ἀφ᾽ ov οἱ πρόγονοι οἱ 
’ Pp ’ ρ 
«ε ΄ ’ » Ὁ 3 rs ng , oe a > Ν Ν > a 
ἡμέτεροι κατέστησαν ἐν TH ἠπείρῳ τῇδε νέαν τινὰ ἀρχῆν αὐτοὶ μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦντες 
a 2 , ΄ Ν ἈΝ > , 4 Gs N¢ ’, ‘ 4 
τῆς ἐλευθερίας πάντας δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἴσους εἶναι καὶ ὁμοίους κατὰ φύσιν 
νομίζοντες " νῦν δ᾽ εἰς πόλεμον καθέσταμεν ἡμεῖς ἐμφύλιον μέγαν καὶ δεινόν, ὃς καὶ 
μ᾿ ’ 
-“" ~ 3 Ν 4 > Ν 3 Ν ΙΝ 7 - ‘ , 4, 
ασανιεῖ τὴν ἀρχὴν ταύτην εἰ καὶ αὐτὴ Kat ἄλλη τοιαύτη THY γνώμην συνεστάναι 
ρ a Ἵ 1 Ἢ TV ὙνΩωΜη 
’ὔ > \ 4 / Ἁ Ν 4 / 7 A /, 
δυνήσεται ἐπὶ χρόνον συχνόν. καὶ δὴ συνεληλύθαμεν τήμερον ὅπου ἐγένετο μεγάλ: 
ἢ μὲν τημερ i] 
~ s, 4, / é \¢ wre > lat , , cal ’ ld 
τοῦ πολέμου τούτου μάχη᾽ Kal ἥκομεν γ᾽ ὡς ἀφοριοῦντές τι μέρος TOD πεδίου Tovdé; 
ἵνα τάφος γένηται κοινὸς τῶν ἐνταῦθα ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος τὰ ἔσχατα κινδυνευούσης 
ἀποθανόντων. καὶ εἰκότως μὲν καὶ δικαίως ταῦτα ποιοῦμεν " τῷ ὄντι δ᾽ οὐ δυνάμεθα 
οὔτε ἀφορίσαι οὔτε ἀναθεῖναι οὔτε ἁγνίσαι δῇ τουτὶ τὸ χωρίον " οἱ γὰρ ἀνδρείως 
» -“ , ΝΜ / ” 4 / σ , > ὦ 
ἐνταῦθα μαχεσάμενοι εἴτε περιγενόμενοι εἴτε Kal πεσόντες οὕτω καθήγνισαν αὐτὸ 
τῷ ἑαυτῶν ἔργῳ ὥστε μὴ ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ εἶναι οὐ δεινῷ λέγειν ὄντι μήτε προσθεῖναι 
- ~ cal , 
μήτε ἀφελεῖν μηδέν. τῶν μὲν yap λόγων τῶν ἡμετέρων οὔτε σφόδρα ἐπιμελή- 
σονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι οὔτε πολύν τινα χρόνον ἀναμνησθήσονται " τοῦ δ᾽ ἔργου τοῦ 
r ~ κ᾿ ν 3 , 
ἐκείνων ἀθάνατον ἔσται τὸ μνῆμα παρὰ τοῖς μέλλουσι γενήσεσθαι. ὥστ᾽ ἀνάγκη 
-" fal “a ‘ > 
μᾶλλον ἡμᾶς τοῦς ζώντας κατομόσαι μὲν ἐνταῦθα διαδέξεσθαι τούτους τοὺς ἐν 
τῷ χωρίῳ τῷδε μαχεσαμένους καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἤδη εὐτυχίας μεγαθύμως προβι- 
- , 
Bacavras τὸν ἀγῶνα, κατομόσαι δ᾽ ὑποδέξεσθαι τὸ ὑπόλοιπον ἔτι μέγα ἔργον 
μαθόντας μὲν ὑπὸ τούτων τῶν καλῶς οὕτω καὶ ἐντίμως τεθνεώτων ἀπρο- 
“- nA ~ “ ’ 
φασίστως μᾶλλον ὑπερμαχεῖν τοῦ ἀξιώματος ὑπὲρ οὗ καὶ ἐκεῖνοι ἀπροφασίστως 
Cal a la 
μαχόμενοι ἀπώλοντο" γνόντας δὲ σὺν θεῷ μὴ περιιδεῖν μάτην τεθνηκότας τουτουσί, 
ἀλλὰ πράττειν κατὰ δύναμιν ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἔθνος τὸ ἡμέτερον καὶ πάλιν κατὰ πᾶσαν 
Lol a a / 
ἐλευθερίαν κτισθῆναι τὴν δὲ πολιτείαν τὴν Ex τε τοῦ δήμου Kal ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου 
καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου μηδέποτ᾽ ἀφανισθῆναι ἐξ ἀνθρώπων" 
-“ “-“ . Ν 
‘rovrov τὸν λόγον τοῦ ἀειμνήστου Lincoln ἑλληνιστὶ 


μεταγράψαι ἐπεχείρησα τῇ ἕκτῃ Μαρτίου 2900’. 


288 


Appendix 


THE EVENING STAR. 
Longfellow. 


Just above yon sandy bar, 

As the day grows fainter and dimmer, 
Lonely and lovely, a single star 

Lights the air with a dusky glimmer. 


Into the ocean faint and far 

Falls the trail of its golden splendor, 
And the gleam of that single star 

Is ever refulgent, soft, and tender. 


Chrysaor rising out of the sea 

Showed thus glorious and thus emulous, 
Leaving the arms of Callirrhoe 

For ever tender, soft, and tremulous. 


Thus o’er the ocean faint and far 

Trailed the gleam of his falchion brightly; 
Is it a God, or is it a star 

That, entranced, I gaze on nightly? 


Πρὸς ἀστέρα ὑποφαίνοντα. 
Ἔν λιμένος προχοαῖς, ὅτ᾽ ἀμυδρότερον πέλῃ ἦμαρ, 
ἀστὴρ φῶς στάζει μαρμαρυγαῖς δνοφεραῖς 
κάλλεϊξ μοῦνος ἔτ᾽ ὧν στιλβων κατὰ μακρὸν Ὄλυμπον 
\ Ν Ψ' > ~ ε "-“ 
καὶ τρυφερὸν λάμπων Oxeavoto ῥοαῖς * 
σπινθῆρας δὲ χέων χρυσοῦς ἐπὶ κύματα μακρὰ 
οἷος ἐὼν σελαγεῖ ῥίμφ᾽ ἐλελιξόμενος. 
Τοιοῦτός ποτ᾽ ἐὼν ἀνετειλ᾽ ἀπὸ βένθεος ἅλμης 
Χρυσάωρ προλιπὼν Καλλιρόην ἁπαλήν" 
ἐκ ξίφεος yap ἔχεν᾽ ἐλελιζομένου κατὰ πόντον 
ψ 4 Ν Ν A , 
οὕτω μακρότονον Kal τρυφερὸν τὸ σέλας. 
᾿Αμφινοῶ δὲ βλέπων τόδε θεσπέσιον τὸ κατ᾽ ἦμαρ, 


»” 3 lal 
ἄστρον dp ἠὲ θεὸν φαινόμενον καθορῶ. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BOOKS, ARTICLES AND REVIEWS 
BY PROFESSOR EARLE.* 


1888 
A New Sikyonian Inscription. American Journal of Archaeology, 
Series I, IV. 427-430. 247-251. 
1889 
A Sikyonian Statue. American Journal of Archaeology, Series 
I, V. 26-37. 234-246. 
1801 
Inscription found at Megara. The Classical Review V. 
244. Omitted. 


Supplementary Excavations at the Theatre of Sikyon in 1891. 
American Journal of Archaeology, Series I, VII. 281-282. Omitted. 


1892 
Notes. The Classical Review VI. 73. 52 (note), and 163. 
Νερό. Ibid. 231-232. 
The Subjunctive of Purpose in Relative Clauses in Greek. Ibid. 
93-95. 213-218. 
New Inscriptions from Sikyon. Ibid. 133-135. 251-256. 
Notes. Ibid. 226-227. 114-115, 144. 
An Inscription at Pellene. Ibid. 367. Omitted. 
On Simonides 4. Ibid. 413-414. 172. 
Ad Euripidis Iphigeniam Tauricam 1351-1353. American Jour- 
nal of Philology XIII. 87. 116-117. 
Note on Sophocles’s Antigone 1204 sq. Ibid. 483. 74. 


Notes on the Subjunctive of Purpose in Relative Clauses in Attic 
Greek. Proceedings of the American Philological Association 
XXIII. xvii-xviii. 218-219. 

1The references at the right-hand ends of the lines are to the pages of this 


volume. The word ‘‘omitted” in the same place means that the article in question 
has not been included in this volume. 


200 Bibliography 


Excavations of the Theatre of Sikyon in 1891. American Jour- 


nol of Archaeology, Series I, VIII. 388-396. Omitted. 
1893 
Emendations in Lysias. The Classical Review VII. 19. 170-171. 
On παῖμα, πῆμα, Herodotus I. 67. Ibid. 20. 161-162. 
Notes on the Supplices. Ibid. 150-152. 119-122. 
Σαλεύειν, Ibid. 248. | 37-38. 
Notes on Euripides, Bacchae 1058-1062. Ibid. 312. 104-105. 
Euripidean Notes. Ibid. 344-346. 108-117, passim. 
Notes on Sophocles, Trachiniae. Ibid. 449-451. 25-29. 


Critical Note on Certain Passages in Sophocles’s Antigone. 
Proceedings of the American Philological Association XXIV. 


XXXVIil. 75- 
Critical Notes on Certain Passages in Sophocles’s Philoctetes. 
Ibid. xxxvii. 81-83. 
1894 
Various Emendations. The Classical Review VIII. 11-12. Omitted. 
Notes on the Bacchae of Euripides. Harvard Studies in Classi- 
cal Philology V. 45-48. 105-108. 
Some Remarks on the Moods of Will in Greek. Proceedings of 
the American Philological Association XXV._ 111. 219-222. 
A Critical Note on Euripides, Ion 1-3. Ibid. Ixili-lxiv. 112-114. | 
1895 
Notes on Euripides, Phoenissae. The Classical Review IX. 
13-14. 117-119. 
Note on Sophocles, Antigone 117-120, Ibid. 15. 47-48. 
Sophocles, Trachiniae 26-48. A Study in Interpretation. Ibid. 
200-202. 29-34. 
Sophocles, Trachiniae 56, and Euripides, Medea 13. Ibid. 395- 
206. Omitted. 
Miscellanea Critica. Ibid. 439-441. 48-51. 
YTTOCTAYPOYN, Mnemosyne XXXIII. 153. 145. 


Review of Sonnenschein’s Greek Grammar for Schools. Edu- 
cational Review X. 298-299. Omitted. 





Bibliography 201 
1896 


The Alcestis of Euripides. Edited with Introduction, Notes, etc. 
Macmillan and Co. : 
Miscellanea Critica. The Classical Review X. 1-4. 
144-145, 160-161, 207-208 (in part). 


On Vergil, Eclogues I. 68-70. Ibid. 194. 211. 
Notes on Euripides’s Alcestis. Ibid. 374-376. 93-97. 
Of the Subjunctive in Relative Clauses after οὐκ ἔστιν and its 
kin. Ibid. 421-424. 222-228. 
Review of Thumb’s Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache. 
The American Journal of Philology XVII. 491-494. Omitted. 
1897 
Critical Notes on Cicero, De Oratore I. The Classical Review 
XI. 22-26. 197-203. 
Note on Plato, Symposium 179 C. Ibid. 159. 154-155. 
Of Two Passages in Homer. Ibid. 242-243. 163-166, 


Notes on Antistrophic Verbal Responsion in Attic Tragedy. Pro- 
ceedings of the American Philological Association XXVIII. 


Xi-xiv. 124-127. 
1898 
Review of Haigh’s Tragic Drama of the Greeks. The Classical 
Review XII. 37-41. Omitted. 
Note on Euripides, Alcestis 501. Ibid. 393-394. 98-100. 
Notes on Bacchylides. Ibid. 394-395. 158-160. 
On Lucian, Timon 18. Proceedings of the American Philological 
Association X XIX. vii-ix. 168-170. 
Note on Sophocles’s Oedipus Coloneus. Ibid. xlvi. 47. 
Encore Hérodote I. 86. Revue de Philologie XXII. 182- 
183. 162-163. 
1899 
Review of Isham’s Homeric Palace. The Classical Review XIII. 
184. Omitted. 


Notes on Sophocles’s Oedipus Tyrannus. Ibid. 339-342. 38-43. 
Notes on Sophocles’s Antigone. Ibid. 386-393. 52-65. 


202 Bibliography 


1900 
Miscellanea. The Classical Review XIV. 20-22. 

90-92, 155-156, 158, 166-167, 172. 
A Suggestion on the Development of the Greek Optative. Ibid. 


122-123. 228-230. 

Euripides, Alcestis 1-85. Revue de Philologie XXIV. 145- 

146. 102-103. 

On the Education of Women. Columbia University Quarterly 

II. 231-234 Quoted in part in the Memoir. 
IQOI 


The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. Edited with introduction, 
notes, etc. The American Book Co. 
Miscellanea Critica. Proceedings of the American Philological 
Association XXXII. xxviii-xxix. 
3, 25 (note), 46 (note), III, 127, 128. 
Note on the Nominative of the First Person in Euripides. Ibid. 


XCiX-Cl. 122-124. 
Review of Gildersleeve’s Greek Syntax. The Bookman XIII. 
506-568. Omitted. 
1902 
The Opening of Sophocles’s Antigone. The Classical Review 
XVI. 3-5. 65-69. 
On Two Passages of Sophocles’s Electra. Ibid. 5-7. 77-80. 
On the First Ode of Horace. Ibid. 398-401. 177-183. 
Studies in Sophocles’s Trachinians. Transactions of the Ameri- 
can Philological Association XX XIII. 5-29. 3-25. 


Notes on Cicero, De Natura Deorum I. Proceedings of the 
American Philological Association XX XIII. Ixx-lxxi. 203-205. 


Notes on the Greek Alphabet. American Journal of Archae- 
ology, Second Series, VI. 46-47. [See p. 257, note. ] 
On Euripides, Hippolytus 43-46. Mnemosyne XXX. 136. 111-112. 
Ad Horatii Sermonem I. 155 sq. Ibid. 347. ΙΟΙ 





Bibliography 293 


1903 
Notes on Sophocles’s Antigone. The Classical Review XVII. 
5-6. 69-73. 
Of the Prologue of the Agamemnon. Ibid. 102-105. 84-90. 
Note on Sophocles’s Electra. Ibid. 209. 80-81. 
Note on Horace, Carmina 1. 3. 1-8. Proceedings of the Ameri- 
can Philological Association XXXIV. xxii-xxiii. 185-186. 
Critical Note on Plato, Republic 423 B. Ibid. xxiii. 156. 


The Supplementary Signs of the Greek Alphabet. American 
Journal of Archaeology, Second Series, VII. 429-444. 259-273. 


Ad Caesaris Comm. De Bello Gallico Initium. Revue de Philol- 


ogie XXVII. 52. 196. 
Sophocle, Oedipe-Roi 10-11. Ibid. 151-153. 43-45. 
De Horatii Sermone I. i. Ibid. 233-235. 191-103. 


Observatiunculae ad Locos Quosdam Poetarum Romanorum. 
Ibid. 269-272. 208-211. 
Ad Vergilii Aeneidem I. 39 ff. Mnemosyne XXXI. 46. 211-212. 


1904 
The Medea of Euripides. Edited with Introduction, Notes, etc. 
The American Book Co. 


On Alcestis’s ἐπίσκηψις, Alcestis 280-325. The Classical Review 


XVIII. 336. ΙΟΟ-ΙΟΙ. 
Notes on Horace. Ibid. 391-392. 183-185. 
De Sophoclis Antigone vv. 5 et 46. Revue de Philologie XXVIII. 

122. 73-74. 
De Xenophontis Anabasi. Ibid. 255. 173-174. 
Ad Ciceronis Catonem Maiorem. Ibid. 123-124. 205-200. 
Analecta. The Latin Leaflet V. No. 104. 230-231. 
Review of Newman’s Edition of Aristotle’s Politics. Political 

Science Quarterly XIX. 157-160. Omitted. 

1905 


On Iliad I. 418. A Reply. The Classical Review XIX. 
241. Omitted. 


204 Bibliography 


Demosthenes’s Nickname ἀργᾶς. Ibid. 250-251. 160. 
On the Apocolocyntosis of Seneca. Ibid. 303. 207. 
De Thucydidis I. 1-23. The American Journal of Philology 
XXVI. 441-454. 129-142. 
Cicero, Orator 30. Revue de Philologie XXIX. 32. 206. 
De Horatii Satira Prima. Ibid. 35-36. 193-195. 
Horatianum. Ibid. 37. | 187. 
De Carmine quod est inter Horatiana IV. viii. Ibid. 306- 
309. 187-190. 
De Livii Praefatione 3. Mnemosyne XXXIII. 397. 206. 
Ad Herodotum. Ibid. 444. 161. 
Three Notes on Greek Semasiology. The Classical Review XXI. 
14. 233. 


Article Athenae in Harper’s Dictionary of Classical Literature 
and Antiquities, 148-156. Omitted. 





INDEX LOCORUM 


The pages in which the various passages are discussed or mentioned are 
given in the parentheses. 

AESCHYLUS, Ag. 1-35 (84-92); 114 (160); 1050 sq. (76); 1072 sq, 1076 
sq., 1080 sq., 1085 sq. (124) ; 1226 (86); 1244 (87, 89); 1530 sqq. (217) ; 
Choeph, 25, 35 (125); ΟἹ (224); 106 (172); 172 (218); 1048 sq. (114); 
1058 (115); Eum. 778-793, 808-823, 837-846, 870-880 (124); Pers. 280-283 
(124); 1040-1048, 1057-1063 (124); Prom. Vinc. 2 (3, note); 201 sq. 
(218) ; 350 (115); 406-413 (23); 470 (224); 471 (216); 613 (48); 907 
sqq. (165-166) ; 918-923 (164). 

APPIAN, Rom. Hist. 11 (158). 

ARISTOPHANES, Av. 94 (42); Ran. 73 (51); 96-08 (215, 226, note); 
Thesm, 887 sq. (172). 

ARISTOTLE, ’A@, Πολ. 12 (91); Metaphy. 1003 A (268); Rhet. 1371 A 
(65). 

BACCHYLIDES, 9.22 sqq. (158); 11.8 sq. (158); 11.43-58 (150); 16.35 
(159); 17.20 (159); 17.82 sqq. (159-160). 

CAESAR, B. G. 1.1 (196). 

CATULLUS, 1.1 (209); 2.11-13 (2090); 10.7-30 (209-210); 11 (184, 209); 
51 (210); 64.351 (210); 64.353 sq. (208-209); 64.382-384 (210); 66.39, 
47 (209). 

CICERO, Cat. M. 19.68 (208); 2.6, 3.8, 5.14, 8.26, 11.38, 23.84 (205-206) ; 
De Fin, 1.2.4 (25); De Leg. Man. 4.10 (203); De Nat. Deor. 1.1, 1.3-4, 
1.16 1.22, 1.25, 1.37, 1.88, 1.90, 1.101, 1.107 (203-205) ; De Orat. 1.1.1 (79); 
I.1.1, 1.3.11, 1.3.12, 1.4.13, 1.7.26, 1.10.42, 1.13.55, 1.13.57 (197-203) ; 2.5.19, 
2.29.127 (203) ; Orat. 30 (206) ; De Petit. 2.9 (197) ; Pro Domo 12 (200); 
Tusc. 3.31.76 (23); 2.8.20-22 (17-25). 

DEMOsTHENES, 6.4 (108); 20.5 (156); 68 (226, note); 9.45 (224); 
Phil. 28 (215). 

DIODORUS SICULUS, 4.4.4 (244); 20.102.2-4 (247, note). 

ENNIUS, Medea (24, with note, 25, with note). 

EURIPIDES, Alc. 1-85 (102-103); 3 (13, note); 24 (50); 34 sq. (9); 37 
(97); 45 (97); 64-69 (163-164) ; 77-136 (7); 112-117 (218); 120 (224); 
120 sq. (217); 136-140 (4, 5, 6); 139 (5, note); 141-150 (7); 144 (10, 
note) ; 153-198 (6, 7); 157 (7); 158 (7); 167 (123); 170 sq. (8); 175- 
184 (8); 175 (8); 192 (8); 1906 (9); 205-208 (51, 97); 224 sq. (9); 
255 (115); 250-263 (51) ; 280-325 (100-101) ; 282-289 (93); 201 sq. (93); 
317 54. (123); 318 (64); 320-322 (04); 332 sq. (164); 339 sq. (39); 
360-362 (94) ; 393-403 (9, note); 306 sq. (9); 403 (8, 9, note); 407-415 
(9, note) ; 433-434 (96); 466 sq. (9); 487 (94); 501-506 (98-100) ; 546 
(96) ; 777 (6, 76); 811 sq. (96) ; 837 (20) ; 876 (96) ; 879 (91); 905 564. 
(172); 1049 (97); 1055 (97); 1115-1118 (6, II, note, 97); 1118-1120 


206 Index Locorum 


(95); 1124 (96); 1129 (95); 1131 (95); 1131-1146 (5); 1134 (96); 
1140 (97); 1143 (96); 1154 (97); Androm. 1-15 (103); 5 (122); 35-37 
(63); 98 (98); 413 sq. (123); 414 (27); 718 (115); 937 (54); 1232 
(122); Bacch. 2 (122); 13-24 (105); 23-38 (159); 101 sqg. (106); 126 
sqq. (106) ; 150 (106) ; 183 (108); 193 (106); 210 sq. (107); 222 (108); 
406 (117); 440 (107); 460 sq. (107); 481 sq. (105); 551 (107); 556 
sq. (106); 613 (108); 688 (108); 814 (110); 1026 (106); 1058-1062 
(104-105); 1088 sqq. (108); 1159 (107); 1188-1191 (108); 1330 sq. 
(106); Cycl. 14 (25); 345 sq. (28); 359-376 (124); El. 112-114, 127-129 
(124) ; 1032 sqq. (16) ; Hec. 3 (122); 19 sq. (108) ; 153 (108) ; 412 (51); 
448 sq. (109); 503 (122); 585 sqq. (108-109) ; 833 sq. (109) ; 882 (109) ; 
IOIQ sq. (III); 1293-1295 (109); Hel. 76 (110); 1047 sq. (30); 1268 
(115) ; 1459 sq. (117); Heracl. 3 (109) ; 280 sq. (110) ; 729 (107); Here. 
Fur. 195 (110); 445 sqq. (110); 631 sq. (111); 667 sq. (III); 1009 
(111); 1245 (218); 1368 (123); 1424 (111); Hipp. 1, 2 (111, 122); 6 
(118) ; 43-46 (111); 46 (35); 204 (28, 112); 362-371, 668-679 (127); 
450 (123); 530 (91); Jon 1-3 (112-114); 15, 16 (113); 23-24 (106); 
I. A, 231-302 (127); 1. T. 285-290 (114); 470 sq. (115); 567 (115); 
588 (119, 224, 226); 624 (115); 725 sq. (115); 1092 (87); 1127 (108); 
1351-1353 (116-117); 1303 (115); 1408 (115); Medea, Prol. (36); 25 
(14); 38-45 (13); 56 sq. (13); 214 sqq. (25, with note); 220 (77); 
406-408 (123); 443-445 (14); 465 (13); 480-482 (24); 569-573 (123); 
576 (156); 718, 780 (164); 770 (110); 779 (43); 786 (17); 793 (86); 
889 sq. (123); 915-918 (123); 926 (123); 956-958 (15, note); ro12 
(6, 7); 1063 (36); 1165 (17); 1339 sq. (15); 1350 (85); Ores. 722 sq. 
(217, 218, 225); 1016 (110); 1353-1365, 1537-1549 (127); Phoen. 208- 
213 (117); 473-477 (117); 504 (118); 569 (110); 703 (118); 740 54. 
(118); 747 (118); 820 (116); 881-883 (118); 947 (118); 1009 (159); 
ΙΟΘΟῚ (159-160); 1134-1138 (118); 1135 (119); 1103 (119); 1233 56. 
(119); Rhes. 131-136, 195-200 (127); 454-466, 820-832 (127); Suppl. 
232-237 (119-121); 253-256 (121-122); 567 (11); 800 sq. (122); 1232 
(122, 219); Tro. 2 (122); Frag. 813.2 (107). 

HELIODORUS, Aethiop. 4.8.35 sq., 10.14.25 sqq. (160-161). 

HERODOTUS, Prooemium (161); 1.67 (161-162); 1.86 (162-163); 2.39 
(163); 2.57 (76); 3.1 (174); 4.143 (156); 9.76 (163). 

HESIOD, Op. 57 sq. (218). 

HIPPOCRATES, Περὶ Διαίτης ᾽Οξέων 2 (91). 

HOMER, J1.1.10 (168) ; 1.262 (221, 227); 1.268 (22); 1.284 (76, 168); 1.414 
(164-166) ; 1.513 (159); 3.164 (39); 3-173 (76); 3-173-175 (167); 3.459 
sq. (218); 4.164 (218); 4.387-390 (164); 5.807-808 (164); 5.826-828 
(164); 5.836 (164); 6.166 sqq. (166); 6.450 54ᾳ. (218); 7.313 56. 
(142-144); 7.356, 371, 375, 413, 420, 444, 465 (144); 9.546 
(164); 11.404 (220); 127 (143); 14.342 sq. (164); 15.254 (164); 
16.152 (110); 19.355-357 (218); 21.103 sq. (218) ; 21.111 sqq. (218); Od. 
I.106-109 (166); 4.227 (164); 5.465 (220); 5.478 sq. (7, note); 6.43-45 
(7, note) ; 6.162 sq. (108); 6.201 sqq. (218); 9.243 (164); 9.262 (164); 


Index Locorum 297 


11.278 (168) ; 14.326 (164) ; 15.310 (218) ; 19.232 sqq. (165) ; 19.205 (164). 

HORACE, Carm. 1.1 (177-183); 1.1.36 (184); 1.2 (183, 184, 209); 1.3.1-8 
(185-186) ; 1.3.37 (184) ; 1.5.2 (22); 1.6 (187); 1.12.41 sq. (184); 1.12.45, 
55 (184); 1.13.16 (184); 1.15.3} (184); 2.2.5 (184); 2.4.4 sq. (184); 
3.1.3-4 (123); 3.0.7-8 (123); 3.11.18 (187); 4.8 (187-190); Epist. 1.1.64, 
80 (184); Epod. 9.1% (123); 13.36 (123); 17.35 (123); Serm. 1.1 (181, 
101-103, 193-195); 1.1.15 sqq. (191); 1.6.3, 4, 42-44 (185); 2.3.108-113 
(194) ; 2.8.11 sq. (230). 

ISAEUS, 1.13 (64). 

ISOCRATES, 4.33 (156) ; 4.44 (224) ; 21.1 (217); Pan.-49 C, ὃ 44 (214). 

JOSEPHUS, Ant. Iud. 1.21 (123). 

JUSTINUS, 8.2 (64). 

LIVY, Praef. 3 (206). 

LUCAN, Phars. 1.16 (185). 

LUCIAN, Diall. Mor. 12.1, Iupp. Trag. 2, De Merc. Cond. 7, Diall. Inf. 11.4 
(169); Hist. Conser. 23 (167); Navig. 16 (170); Tim. 8 (170); Tim. 
18 (168-170). 

LYSIAS, 7.18 (64); 12.1 (156); 12.38 (157); 12.80 (172); 15.5 (170-171); 
16.11 (172); 181 (171); 19.25 (171); 23.14 (171); 26.23 (156); 31.24 
(171) ; 32.24 (64); And. 42 (214). 

MARTIAL, 7.20.16 sq. (230); 14.81 (230). 

PAUSANIAS, 2.7.2 (254) ; 5.24.1, 6.9.1, 6.3.11 (247, note) ; 6.3.6 (245, note). 

PINDAR, Olym. τ. init. (87). 

PLATO, Apol. 17 (155-156) ; 26 A (169) ; 30 E-31 (170); 36 D (01) ;Euthy. 
283 B, 285 E (54); Gorg. 493 B (169); Jon 535 B (214); Legg. 731 A 
(50) ; 923 B (38); Phaed. 57 A-B (140); Phaedr. 255 E (214); Prot. 
320 C (56); 322 A (57); 337 A-C (120); 344 C (60); 344 D (56); 
357 E (63); Rep. τ (146-154) ; 330 A (205); 308 B (215); 410 D (or), 
423 B (156) ; 468 D (142); 470 C (156-157) ; 526 C (91); 578 E (216);: 
Symp. 179 C (154-155); 104 D (214). 

PLINY, Hist. Nat. 34.51, 52, 56, 61, 67, 83 (239-246, with notes, 252). 

PLUTARCH, Arat. 46 (252, 253); Artax. 1, 2 (167); Caes. 5 (217); De 
Her, Mal. 21 (247, note) ; Demosth. 4.5 (160) ; Sull. 29.5 (51). 

POLYBIUS, 23.8 (255). ἐν 

SAPPHO, 1 (171). τ 

SENECA, Abpocol. 5, 12, 13, 15 (207); Herc. Oet. 500 saa. 

SIMONIDES, 4 (172). Ce roe. 

SOPHOCLES, Ai. 428 (217); 463-465 (63); 514 sq. (218); 556 sq. (82); 
560-563 (164); 858 (97); Antig. 1 (48); 1-10 (65-69); 1-35 (48 sq.) ; 
4 (20, 52); 24 sq. (10, 52); 30 (27, 79); 33 (53); 38 (53); 45, 46 (73); 
51 (59); 70 (229); 82 sqq. (75); 100-162 (53, 127); 117-120 (47, 48); 
132 (160); 134-142 (72, note); 148 sqq. (27); 162 saq. (37, 70, 71); 
178 (49, 60); 193 (66); 270 544. (171, 217); 289-204 (72); 320 (54) ; 
332-375 (59, 60); 342-352 (54); 354 (50); 364 (56); 368 (56): 375 
(159) 5 404 sq. (75); 411 (150); 417 sq. (76, 70); 420, 421 (4, note) ; 
427 sq. (76); 450-452 (60); 478 sq. (76, 111); 495, 406 (72); 504 sa, 


298 Index Locorum 


(73); 531-535 (170); 540 (64); 544-547 (75); 569-575 (64); 580 54. 
(50); 593 (64); 509 (65); 602 (26); 773 (3, note); 795 sq. (51); 806 
sq. (50); 807-808 (97); 818 (74); 904 sq. (65); 990 (107); 1001 sq. 
(76) ; 1115-1135 (127); 1184 sq. (219); 1203 (119); 1322 sq. (2190); 
153-163 (77); El. 316 (69); 360 (101); 417 sq. (66); 616 (82) ; 681-687 
(78) ; 683 sq. (80) ; 713-715 (4, note) ; 763 (66); 1075 (73); 1232 (126); 
1290 sq. (170); 1349 (83); 1452 (96); Oed. Col. 1 (103); 651, 848, 924 
(54); 1036 (47); 1162 (108); 1580 (47); 1623-1625 (108); Oed. Tyr. 
2-5 (38); 8 (103); 9-11 (39); 10-11 (43-45); 15-21 (40); 22-30 (170) ; 
2-24 (37); 31 (40); 35 (40, 42); 35-45 (41); 44-45 (41); 47 (41); 
47-57 (45); 48 (42); 51 (41); 54 sq. (46); 55 (42); 58 (42); 80-83 
(42); 99 (42); 116 sq. (42); 118, 119 (42); 119 (171); 122 sq. (42); 
141-146 (42-43); 142 (40); 219 sq. (82, 83); 421 sq. (43); 430 (43); 
507 (65); 604 544. (37); 900 (26, note); 1292 (107); 1367-1374 (43); 
Phil. 2 (3, note); 11 (4); 21 (4); 43 sq. (81); 54 586. (81); 96 sqq. 
(32); 151 (10); 173-175 (37); 201 (126); 279 806. (217, 226, note); 
280, 281 (215, 216); 391-402, 506-518 (127); 567 (82): goo sqq. (82); 
917 (83); 938 (217); 991 (83); 1081 (74); 1193-119 (37); Trach. 1-3 
(34) ; 1-875 (10); 14 (4); 9-14 (35); 17 (36); 21-2§ (29, 30); 26-48 
(29-34) ; 27 sq. (36); 20-31 (36); 44 sa. (36); 55 (25); 56 sq. (26); 
65 sq. (26); 74 sq. (26); 92 sq. (26); 144-146 (7, note, 168, note); 148 
sqq. (26, 27); 166 sqq. (27); 178 sq. (27); 196 sq. (27, 28); 248 sq. 
(13); 322-328 (4); 416 (11); 516 (28); 523 sqqg. (30); 536 sqq. (16); 
568 (15, note); 582-586 (15); 602 (17); 608 sq. (28); 672 sq. (28); 
764 (17); 787 (4); 825 (31); 863-867 (7); 860 (6); 871-808 (7); 8ο6- 
946 (6, 7); 900 (7); 903 (10, 28, 216, 226, note); 904 (8); 908 sq. 
(8); 913 (8); 914 sq. (9, 10); 915-922 (8); 938 (8, 9); 941 sq. (29); 
942 (9) ; 943 (9); 1044 sq. (10, note) ; 1046-1102 (17-25) ; 1157 sq. (28); 
1181, 1184 (6, τί; note); 1192 (28). 

STATIUS, Theb. 2.204 sqq. (207, 208). 

SYRIANUS, Schol. Aristot. Metamph. 940 B (268). 

THUCYDIDES, 1.1-23 (129-142); 1.11.1 (142-144); 1.37.4 (119); 1.53.4 
(121) ; 1.63.2 (121); 1.04.1 (121); 1.95.6 (121); 1.109.2 (1219 ΝΣ 
(162); 6.1.1 (140); 6.2.6 (135); 6.9.2 (121); 6.11.2 (144); 6.12.2 (120, 
121); 6.15 (120, 121); 6.17.3 (145); 6.31.4 (144); 6.54.3 (110); 6.101 
(145); 7.13.2 (145); 7.25 (214, 215); 7.55.1 (51). 

VERGIL, Ecl. 1.68-70 (211); 1.19, 1.62, 2.2, 2.12, 3.65 (208-200); Aen. 1.30 
sqq. (211-212) ; 2.677 sq. (123) ; 9.22 (123); 9.485 (212); 12.603 (168). 
XENOPHON, Ages. 8.6 (62); Anab, 1.1.1 (167); 1.1.2 (173); 1.1.4 (167); 
1.3.12 (157) ; 1.3.18 (173, 174); 1.4.12 (174); 1.68 (157) ; 1.7.7 (aig; amy 
218); 1.8.15 (145); 1.9.7 (173); 2.4.4 (173); 2.4.19-20 (213); 2.6.29 
(93); 34.13 (47); 5.83 (54); Hell. 13.5 (217); 1.3.5 (214) ΟΝ 
(217); 2.3.16 (91, 172); Mem. 1.2.20 (56); 4.4.19 (62, note); Oecon. 

7.20 (214). 


SHIA 
ὃ 


δὴν 
ἣν 














Mera 


μ 














